Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Friday 11 & Saturday 12 September 2009 Harold Park Function Centre, Glebe NSW
Future Directions in LiteracyConference
and Certificate inPrimary Literacy Education
Hosted by
Division of Professional Learning Faculty of Education and Social Work The University of Sydney Website: www.proflearn.edsw.usyd.edu.au
2009
1
Proceedings of the Future Directions in Literacy Conference September 11- 12 2009
Publication of Academic Papers
The papers published in these proceedings were collected from presentations given at a two-
day conference entitled, Future Directions in Literacy Conference, hosted by the Division of
Professional Learning at the Faculty of Education and Social Work on September 11- 12 2009,
and on September 5- 6 2008. All authors presenting at the conferences were offered peer
review in a double-blind review process by the international review team. Fourteen papers
were received from Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Fiji and South Africa and 6 authors
submitted their paper for full review.
Review process
The conference program chair established two committees: an international scientific
committee and a conference advisory committee. The Future Directions Advisory committee
was composed of 6 people with backgrounds in schools and university teaching who reviewed
the abstracts of papers submitted for the conference. The international scientific committee
(board of reviewers) was composed of 12 people with expertise in the area of literacy research
and education. The members came from a range of different countries, with personnel drawn
from both Australian and universities from other countries. This team reviewed the papers
submitted for publication.
Each manuscript submitted was read by two reviewers selected from the international board of
reviewers. To achieve consistency, reviewers were provided with a Reviewer’s Guide and
detailed assessment criteria. The international review team provided detailed, formative
feedback for the authors. This process enabled the papers to be recommended for revision or
rejection. The papers with positive recommendations from the two reviewers were allowed
time for revision. Once revisions were made the papers were sent back to the original
reviewers for final comment. Comments were collated by the program chairs and papers were
then accepted for publication depending on the final peer reviewed ranking.
2
Editor: Dr Alyson Simpson, University of Sydney
ISBN: 978-1-74210-174-3
November 2009
Published by: The University of Sydney
Division of Professional Learning, A35
Faculty of Education and Social Work
The University of Sydney, NSW 2006
Conference Chair
Dr Alyson Simpson, The University of Sydney, Australia
International scientific committee and board of reviewers Professor Roslyn Arnold, Australia
Professor Frances Christie, Australia
Associate Professor Catherine Compton-Lilly, USA
Associate Professor David Evans, Australia
Professor Robyn Ewing, Australia
Professor Stuart McNaughton, New Zealand
Professor Diana Masny, Canada
Dr Alyson Simpson (Program Chair), Australia
Associate Professor Jane Torr, Australia
Dr Jan Turbill, Australia
Dr David Whitehead, New Zealand
Professor Geoff Williams, Canada
3
Proceedings of the Future Directions in Literacy Conference September 11- 12 2009
The Future Directions in Literacy Conference 2009 was proudly hosted by the Division
of Professional Learning in the Faculty of Education and Social Work at The University
of Sydney. It was held during National Literacy and Numeracy Week to signal the
important role that literacy has in all our learning and teaching.
We thank our sponsors, e:lit, the Primary English Teaching Association, and Walker
Books for their contributions to the conference. e:lit is a national professional association
which serves as a forum for the sharing of current research and practice relevant to the
teaching and learning of language – spoken, written and visual. Walker Books is a world
wide publishing group that develops and promotes children’s literary texts as well as
teacher support materials. The combination of these two sponsors represents the richness
that this conference addresses.
The recent focus of literacy education in Australia has been on the development of a
National curriculum. National testing and reporting also continue to strongly influence
how teachers operate in their classrooms. A common complaint heard during the year
was the pressure to teach to the test. This became so powerful that numerous teachers
have said there is no time to read aloud to their students. Others commented that creative
approaches to thinking and learning about reading and writing are fine in theory but will
only be squeezed in once they believe they have prepared their students with sufficient
practice with likely test questions. The tension for the immediate future direction of
literacy education is to highlight how balanced approaches, authentic resources and
creative and imaginative thinking in fact enhance children’s literacy development and
will lead to better achievement in tests such as NAPLAN.
4
This is the context in which the 2009 Future Directions in Literacy conference was held.
Debates around significant issues that are not easy to solve were held. Directions forward
informed by these debates with evidence from classrooms, research, and policy were
planned with the aim to reach an educational goal in which equity, creativity and
intellectual rigour are supported by an overarching pedagogical framework.
The research that informed our conversations this year included voices from Fiji,
Singapore, New Zealand as well as Australia. The conference stimulated professional
conversations about future developments in literacy pedagogy and practice. As in
previous years the forum provided an opportunity for teachers, students, academics and
policy makers to share concerns as well as potential solutions to the current problems
facing literacy educators. The scope of papers, workshops and presentations covered
issues pertinent to the age range K-8: infants to the middle years.
We aimed to be provocative, however we realize that for new ideas to become accepted
practice there needs to be reflective discussion. In this spirit we publish these papers to
provide the chance for readers to engage with the presentations in their own context.
Best wishes,
Alyson Simpson
Conference convenor
5
Proceedings of the Future Directions in Literacy Conference
September 11- 12 2009
Table of Contents
Oral language foundations to literacy success:
Teaching literate vocabulary pp 7 - 37
Carolyn Cole
Department of Education and Children’s Services, SA
Cultural Insights Into Indigenous Literacies:
Royal Far West School Case Study pp 38 - 47
Wendy Hanlen
Wendy Hanlen Consultancy
Teachers learning about grammar:
Experiences and challenges during a graduate TESOL paper pp 48 - 66
Maree Jeurissen
The University of Auckland
Leadership, literacy and learning with technologies pp 67- 79
Associate Professor Kathryn Moyle
Faculty of Education, University of Canberra
Ms Jan Rogers
Principal, Numeralla Public School
6
Oral language foundations to literacy success: Teaching literate vocabulary
Carolyn Cole
Department of Education and Children’s Services, SA
7
Oral language foundations to literacy success: Teaching literate vocabulary
Abstract Oral language is integral to successful literacy learning and the specific skills of vocabulary, complex syntax, oral narrative, and inferencing, in combination with knowledge and metalinguistic skills, underpin reading comprehension. Scope and complexity in these language areas is not culturally universal despite reliance on these skills for successful participation and learning in mainstream curriculum, and it is often socioeconomically marginalised communities whose sociolinguistic practices are often most distant from the language demands of school. In order to give children from low income and linguistically diverse families, entry into the language of school, explicit teaching of school oral language skills is necessary. This paper provides information about the requisite oral language skills for successful literacy learning, and discusses embedded, explicit teaching of vocabulary as one specific component of oral language instruction that supports reading comprehension.
Literacy is tool for communication, recreation and learning and it is considered a life
skill, necessary for successful participation in Western society. There are many
different kinds of literacy that are relevant to the contexts in which they operate – home
literacies, community literacies, academic literacies, curriculum literacies and so on,
serving many different purposes and functioning in diverse ways. School literacy refers
to the range of texts and purposes that are common in the domain of schooling and
which are also central to mainstream, Western society’s discourses of power and
knowledge. In order to become competent in the written and technological texts that are
part of education, fluent use of literate oral language is essential.
Literate oral language rests on a foundation of culturally located skills, values,
understanding and practices and there is widespread recognition that early childhood
language experiences that complement school language practices, act to prepare
children for the language and literacy demands of formal schooling (Anderson &
Freebody, 1981; Dickinson, McCabe, & Essex, 2006; Heath, 1982; Neuman, 2006;
NICHD Early Childhood Research Network, 2005; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Westby,
2004).
There is a clear relationship between social class and both oral language and literacy
(Arnold, Lonigan, Whitehurst, & Epstein, 1994; Bus, 2002; Heath, 1983; Tomblin,
2005) with children from low income families considered to be at much greater risk of
having difficulty learning to read than their middle-class peers (Dickinson & Snow,
8
1987). Sociolinguistic practices in these communities can be considerably divergent
from the language patterns and functions that are required for school, resulting in a
mismatch between the language skills a child brings to school, and the language
expectations of mainstream curriculum.
This paper explores the links between oral language and literacy and discusses how
explicit vocabulary teaching strategies can be embedded within universal instruction. to
target students whose early language experiences and skills place them at a
disadvantage for school literacy learning. Although children from culturally and
linguistically diverse background are the focus here, recommended strategies also have
application to students with language and learning disabilities.
Literate Language
Literate language – the language of school, calls upon uncommon and interesting
vocabulary, complex grammatical structures, and non-literal forms of language such as
metaphor and idioms. Literate language is powerful within the cultural contexts that
value its use, such as scholarly articles, professional presentations, adults’ and
children’s literature, negotiations, personal recounts, proposals and hypotheses. Take
the following extract from one of the Harry Potter novels as an example:
Silhouetted against the golden moon, and growing larger every moment, was a large, strangely lop-sided creature, and it was flapping in Harry’s direction. He stood quite still, watching it sink lower and lower. For a split second he hesitated, his hand on the window-latch, wondering whether to slam it shut, but then the bizarre creature soared over one of the streetlamps of Privet Drive, and Harry, realising what it was, leapt aside. (Rowling, 1999, p.11)
Literate language is very descriptive and enables nuances of meaning to be captured,
amplified, manipulated and packaged eloquently in sentences that are rich in
information and linguistic complexity. This is not, however the language that is yelled
from the sidelines of an Under 10s soccer match. Nor does it assist in mobilising a 17
year old to tidy his room and empty the dishwasher, unless of course it is part of a larger
9
negotiation which is bound to consequences and outcomes that rely on fulfilment of
promises! Literate language has its place.
The issue we have, however is that considerable power is afforded those people who are
proficient literate language users as literate language is the language of tertiary
education, politics and persuasion – language described by Bernstein in the 1960’s as
elaborated (Bernstein, 1964). Literate language is the dominant discourse of school and
as schools become increasingly academically focused, their investment in and
expectation for competent literate language use, grows (Genishi & Dyson, 2009).
Development of literate language skills has been shown to be socially located (Heath,
1982; Tabors, Roach, & Snow, 2001; van Kleeck, Gillam, Hamilton, & McGrath, 1997;
van Kleeck, 2007) in middle and upper income communities with social class
differences in language development evident as young as age two. These differences
persist well into high school (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997)
Using Bernstein’s model of language and power, people who are not proficient users of
literate language, who instead rely on a restricted code, are limited in their access to the
social capital (Bourdieu, 1991) that literate language enables. The ‘restricted code’ is
described as having limited diversity, greater contextual reliance, greater redundancies
and more informality and predictability. Use of a ‘restricted’ language style in writing
is considered typical of weak writing skills (Horowitz & Samuels, 1987).
The major limitation of Bernstein’s model is the implication that there are in fact just
two distinct language forms in use in Western society, when there are multiple
languages and literacies in operation across the diverse communities that make up our
society. Nonetheless, understanding the broad characteristics of school language and
literacy as they currently operate is necessary both to recognise how a dominant code
can act to exclude children from fully participating in education, and to support the
building of bridges between home languages and the language and literacy demands of
school.
10
Family influences on literacy and literate language
Children from low income families are considered to be at much greater risk of having
difficulty learning to read than their middle-class peers (Dickinson & Snow, 1987) and
this risk is intimately related to their language and literacy experiences before entry into
school. For these at-risk children all prereading domains are likely to be weak – that is
their phonological awareness, print-related knowledge, vocabulary, background
knowledge, oral narrative skills and mastery of complex grammar (Burgess & Lonigan,
1998; Hart & Risley, 1992; Torgesen, 2004; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Literate
language, then, is located in family culture.
Children in middle-class families in the United States are estimated to have experienced
some 1000 hours of being read to when they enter school, compared with only 25 hours
of reading time provided in low-income families (Neuman, 1999). Similarly, the
amount of talk that occurs in US college and tertiary educated households is estimated
to be nearly three times as much as occurs in low income homes, and this is correlated
with both the vocabulary size and vocabulary learning trajectories of children from
these households. Where parents sustain high levels of verbal interaction with children,
social class differences in vocabulary outcomes do not occur as children mainly use the
words their parents use with them in conversations (Hart & Risley, 1995). Similarly
Tizard, Cooperman, Joseph and Tizard (1972) found that two to five year olds living in
orphanages showed vocabulary levels commensurate with the amount of adult-child talk
that occurred. Orphanage children who were spoken to infrequently developed much
smaller vocabularies.
Differences in vocabulary size have been shown to persist, leading to the conclusion
that the experience of schooling and immersion in school language is not in itself
sufficient to impact children’s language learning outcomes. Thus there is a call for
literacy programs to specifically address the oral language skills of at-risk readers as
part of preventing long term reading difficulties (NICHD Early Childhood Research
Network, 2005; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
11
Literate Oral Language
Literate oral language includes the kinds of meaning and structure based skills that are
typical of written language, and are differentiated from general oral discourse which
generally uses less complex grammar, simpler vocabulary, greater repetition and relies
more on shared understandings between speaker and listener (Westby, 2004; Whitehurst
& Lonigan, 1998). Whilst most children develop competency in their community oral
discourses, it cannot presumed that the preferred, literate discourses of education have
also been acquired.
For teachers, whose early childhood experiences of language have often included
extensive literate language interactions, the role of adults talking with children, reading
to children, discussing books, explaining ideas and introducing new words may appear
intuitive or ‘natural and normal’. These language and literacy interactions however are
deliberate approaches that parents use with their children as part of valued, cultural
practices. These practices are largely evident in white, middle and upper income
communities. For those children who do not have a solid foundation of literate
language experiences, explicit teaching of literate language in the preschool and school
years is a matter of social justice.
Oral language experiences that support literacy
The early language experiences that have particular relevance to children’s literacy
outcomes can be clustered into two age-related phases: babies/toddlers and
preschoolers.
Babies and Toddlers
Research shows that different levels of parent engagement in play and different amounts
of talking at home before children turn three are strongly related to young children‘s
12
vocabulary learning (Hart & Risley, 1995; Hart & Risley, 1992; Rush, 1999; Tabors et
al., 2001). Talk in these years has been identified as a critical indicator of quality in
childcare with verbal responsiveness identified as a key component in attachment,
relationships and wellbeing between carers, parents and children (Girolametto &
Weitzman, 2002; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998; Thompson, 2004; Winter, 2004).
This early talk with toddlers also serves to begin building children’s knowledge of
themselves and their environment, and adopts topics that also frequently arise in
preschool such as colours, shapes, family and food (Snow, 2004).
The Preschool Years
The next major period of language learning occurs with preschool children between the
ages of three and five years, when children typically from middle class households learn
“how to do” the language of school. Through experiences of joint book reading and
family conversations children learn how to answer questions, use descriptive
vocabulary, give explanations, hypothesize and predict, and talk in extended discourse
without the turn-taking support more typically available in conversations (Snow,
Tabors, & Dickinson, 2001; van Kleeck, 2007). The use of nonimmediate talk
(DeTemple, 2001) or decontextualised language (Westby, 2004) is considered to be
particularly important in preparing children for the language demands of reading and
writing. Middle-class parents gradually shift their book-sharing conversations from
literal ‘in context’ discussion to comments and questions that go beyond the actual
pictures and text (Hammett, Van Kleeck, & Huberty, 2003; van Kleeck & Beckley-
McCall, 2002) giving their children opportunities to hear and practice engaging with
forms of language that are frequently used in school.
Literate vocabulary
Vocabulary is the central pillar of literate language and a comprehensive literate
vocabulary not only supports our ability to talk and write in complex and detailed ways,
it also supports us to think and understand about the world in more elaborate and precise
ways (Stahl, 1999). This precision is powerful in helping us express and interpret exact
13
meanings, for example separating a feeling of annoyance from that of exasperation,
both of which might otherwise be collapsed into the general emotional reaction of
anger.
Literate vocabulary includes the kinds of words that “are likely to appear frequently in a
wide variety of texts and in the written and oral language of mature (literate) language
users” (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002). Students who are competent, literate
language users are able to take advantage of indirect vocabulary learning opportunities
at school and will learn more words from experiences such as listening to stories, than
children with smaller vocabularies (Robbins & Ehri, 1994). In addition, children who
read widely are likely to have repeated experiences with novel and complex words
which leads to even further expansion of their vocabularies. On the other hand, children
with smaller vocabularies and slower rates of vocabulary acquisition will need
vocabulary instruction in classrooms (Beck et al., 2002) as well as knowledge or
schema building to support lexical learning (Hirsch, 2003; Neuman & Celano, 2006).
Categorising vocabulary
The idea of ‘tiers’ of vocabulary (Beck et al., 2002) is useful in identifying which words
need to be taught. In this model, assuming we are considering a literate language user,
“Tier 1” words are the common or garden variety of words – the most basic, simple
words that can usually be expected to be part of all student’s vocabularies, and those
which are also commonly occurring in everyday talking. For example chair, walk, sad,
food. The second tier of word contains the kinds of words that mature, literate language
users will include across a wide variety of contexts, such as flexible, distressed,
convenient and purposeful. (Beck et al., 2002). These ‘interesting’ words are literate in
style. Take for example, Russell and the Lost Treasure (Scotton, 2006), a story about a
sheep that finds a treasure chest only to discover it is full of “useless stuff” including an
ancient camera. Finding the camera leads Russell to make his own treasure – a photo
album of his friends and family. Despite fairly minimal text, this children’s picture
book includes words such as admire, peered, clattering, invention, brimming and
rummaged – a veritable treasure of tier 2 words!
14
Beck et al (1982) advocate teaching around 400 tier two words per year as this has been
shown to positively impact word knowledge and text comprehension. The criteria for
identifying these words include the usefulness and frequency of occurrence of the word
(eg debate versus cogitate), the teachability of the word and the potential variety of
ways the word can be used (eg deterioration versus genuflect), and whether or not the
student is likely to already have an understanding of the general concept that the word
represents, which provides a platform on which more specific word meaning is built (eg
controversy can be build on the idea of argue or disagree).
Tier three words tend to be domain/subject specific and are not high frequency, for
example terminology in biology, or within a particular interest area such as colonial
knot (embroidery) or crankshaft (mechanics). These are immediately recognisable as
words that will need to be explicitly taught in order to learn the specific subject content.
Monitoring meaning
A framework to consider the extent of word knowledge is useful and there are many
descriptions available in the literature ( e.g. Beck, McKeown, & Omansen, 1987; Calfee
& Drum, 1986; Dale, 1965), some of which have been in circulation for nearly 70 years
(Cronbach, 1942). Dale’s approach which uses four stages of word knowledge moving
from “Never heard it before” to “Knows it well”, is appealing because of its simplicity,
and in my clinic I have used a similar construct referring to ‘traffic lights’ as a cuing
system for level of word knowledge (See Lubliner, 2006). In this system ‘red light
words’ are those that are not known, ‘yellow light words’ as words that are ‘sort of’
known but the meaning may be vague, and ‘green light words’ are confidently
understood and can be explained. This approach serves not only to give adults and
children a common language to discuss word knowledge, that is, a metacognitive
strategy, but also teaches children a process of thinking about the words they encounter
in reading. Through discussion of red and yellow light words and the exploration of
their meaning, an underlying construct of ‘I expect to understand and when I don’t I can
do something about it’ is established. This supports students to reflect on meaning
15
during listening and reading, and positions them as agents of understanding, empowered
to seek out meaning not just hope that it happens.
The influence of context on word meanings (both tiers one and two) is another
important ‘meaning monitoring’ aspect of vocabulary teaching. For example, the word
take shifts meaning subtly from Take a photo, to Take a tablet, to Take your school bag,
to Take someone’s purse. A literate level of vocabulary knowledge enables examination
of these shifts in meaning and connections to networks of contexts and synonyms which
accurately reflect the different meanings.
Teaching vocabulary explicitly
Whilst there is some evidence that children can acquire new vocabulary by being
exposed to novel words during reading (Robbins & Ehri, 1994) the words that are most
readily learned in this context are those that are concrete and descriptive (McFalls,
Schwanenflugel, & Stahl, 1996; Schwanenflugel, Stahl, & McFalls, 1997). Incidental
vocabulary development is most effective for students who already have an extensive
vocabulary (Nicholson & Whyte, 1992) and these students are also more likely to read
extensively and be competent at making inferences. For these students an estimated five
to fifteen words out of every one hundred unknown words will be learned (Nagy,
Herman, & Anderson, 1985; Swanborn & de Glopper, 1999) Students from low income
households are less likely to benefit from incidental vocabulary learning opportunities
as they may not have the vocabularies or literate language experiences to benefit from
immersion. Immersion is like adding more water to the swimming pool and assuming
that this in itself will result in non-swimmers being able to swim.
The National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, 2000) identified that in addition to incidental learning and indirect
vocabulary teaching, vocabulary should be taught directly, including multiple exposures
to words, embedded within rich, engaging contexts, using scaffolding and technology
and using a diverse range of instructional methods. The integration of vocabulary
16
instruction as a means of enabling students to participate in school discourse, whilst
valuing and building on community language skills, can be challenging for classroom
teachers given their reasonably homogenous literate language backgrounds and the ease
with which literate language participants seem to extend their lexicons. There is,
therefore a need for teachers to have access to a range of explicit teaching strategies,
embedded in authentic literacy and learning experiences. (Duke, Purcell-Gates, Hall, &
Tower, 2007; Juel, Biancarosa, Coker, & Deffes, 2003; Justice & Ezell, 2004; Williams,
2006).
Explicit teaching
Explicit teaching in this paper is not intended to imply the “skill and drill” approach
taken in direct instruction. Rather, it is presented as a merger of Rosenshine’s (1986)
process of task definition, demonstration, guided learning and constructive, specific
feedback – a ‘learning’ (Krashen, 1976) or cognitively explicit approach – with a
experiential or ‘acquisition’ approach (Krashen, 1976) which is contextually bound,
typified by repetition in naturalistic contexts (both in terms of communication events
and partners) with gradual expansion of understandings to other situations. In other
words, vocabulary instruction not only needs to be purposeful, relevant and meaningful
to the task at hand, but also needs to empower students in conscious approaches to
accessing and manipulating the vocabulary they use as they pursue “complex and exact
ways of talking about the world and of understanding the ways that more complex
thinkers see the world” (Stahl, 1999).
I would add to this description of explicit teaching, the need to facilitate engagement in
the process of learning by making language learning fun and intriguing (Beck et al.,
2002). We want to spark in our students the motivation to actively seek out meaning.
Looking up a word in a dictionary and putting it into a sentence does not bring a word
to life and dictionary meanings are not always helpful for students with poor
vocabularies. Take for example the word manoeuvre in the sentence “He manoeuvred
himself into the Franklin household” – on checking a dictionary definition of the word
manoeuvre we are given:
17
n 1 skilful movement. 2 contrived, complicated, and possibly deceptive plan or action. ♦ pl
3 military or naval exercises. ♦ v 4 manipulate or contrive skilfully or cunningly. 5
perform manoeuvres. (Collins, 2002)
In the absence of any discussion, reliance on dictionary definitions will probably not
help the student understand the intended meaning in the text.
It is also essential that children understand that language is empowering – something
that is worth paying attention to and which can enhance meaning, add weight and
authority, convince, control, reflect and define in ways that are valued and rewarded
within education and mainstream cultures. It is therefore important to start by teaching
words that give the most leverage in terms of comprehension, applicability and
teachability.
The following explicit teaching strategies have been drawn from clinical experience and
from a range of sources such as (Alderete et al., 2004; Annandale et al., 2005; Beck et
al., 2002; Culatta, Aslett, Fife, & Setzer, 2004; Dickinson, McCabe, Anastasopoulos,
Peisner-Feinberg, & Poe, 2003; Duke et al., 2007; Gillam, Fargo, & Robertson, 2009;
Hindman & Wasik, 2006; Justice & Pence, 2005; Justice & Kaderavek, 2004; Justice,
Mashburn, Pence, & Wiggins, 2008; Kamil, 2004; Neuman & Celano, 2006; Westby,
2004). The intention is to focus on strategies that are deliverable in any teaching and
learning situation that teachers can embed within day to day, meaningful curriculum
contexts.
Knowledge, definitions & contextualisation
Knowledge activation ‘turns the lights on’ in the relevant areas of a child’s lexicon, and
this initial activation helps with later word retrieval for use in talking and writing. For
example, when embarking on reading the book ‘Mr Seahorse’ (Carle, 2004) we would
first talk about the sea in general, then discuss what we know about seahorses, perhaps
using a thinking framework such as “Facts, Negatives, Positives”, based on deBono’s ‘6
18
Thinking Hats’ (deBono, 1999). We would go to Google Images for pictures of
seahorses, and to You Tube to watch footage of a seahorse giving birth.
Identifying Tier 2 words & giving definitions
Once background information has been ‘turned on’, the next step is to identify relevant
Tier 2 vocabulary to teach, bearing in mind the selection criteria of likely frequency of
occurrence, existing conceptual underpinnings, importance in text comprehension and
teachability.
Once words are identified, Beck et al advise using “student-friendly explanation” (2002,
p.35) which include describing the typical usage of the word as well as explaining the
meaning in “everyday language”.
For example, the word sinister is used to make a reader feel fear, anticipating
that something bad is going to happen. Sinister means there is a threat of
something bad. Sinister is also used to mean evil or wicked and usually suggests
that the character is planning some kind of horrible things to hurt someone on
purpose.
Contextualising meaning
Going on to relate the word to the context in which is has been used helps illustrate the
meaning as it applies in the text. It is also useful to talk about how the author has used
the word as a device to evoke certain feelings, meanings or reactions.
For example, the word despondent is used in A Series of Unfortunate Events:
The Bad Beginning, in the sentence “Klaus was too tired and despondent to
speak…” (Snicket, 1999). This refers to the fact that Klaus feels like the
situation they have found themselves in is hopeless. He thinks there is no way
out, that they are doomed and he feels so powerless that he doesn’t even want to
talk to anyone. It is like there is a great weight on top of him and it is so heavy
he can’t stand up and he feels like he will be stuck there forever. So the author
has chosen this word despondent, to show us that Klaus is feeling more than
sad. Despondent means that Klaus is unhappy, but so unhappy that he doesn’t
19
think things will ever get better. Despondent is a really strong word and the
author has used despondent rather than just unhappy, to show us how very
unhappy Klaus is.
Multiple examples
Giving multiple examples is important in creating a ‘map’ of the meaning, so that
students can understand the word beyond the single context in which it has appeared.
So in the case of despondent there might be examples from my experience as well as the
students’ experiences that help further exemplify its meaning.
For example, one day I had to take my dog to the vet because she was very sick.
The vet wasn’t sure if she could make my dog well and told me she would have
to do some tests first. I had to leave my dog at the vet’s office overnight, and
when I went home I felt very despondent. I was really really sad because I
thought my dog might die. I was really despondent – not just a little bit sad, a
LOT sad. Despondent.
Students would then be invited to give their examples of times they felt despondent, and
they would be encouraged to think of a variety of situations, not just when an animal or
someone they know might die. It is very important that despondent can be understood
as applying to a variety of contexts, because we feel sadness in a variety of contexts,
each of which influences precise meaning.
Embedding vocabulary instruction into reading aloud
Being able to invoke explicit vocabulary teaching during text reading is important, as
this is the process we want students to use. Interestingly this is actually done at times
during the Snicket books, for example: “Klaus sighed and relinquished – a word which
here means “gave to Count Olaf even though he didn’t want to” – the book on nuptial
law.” (Snicket, 1999). Similarly we can explain meanings as we read aloud,
interspersing the text with explanations and examples. Where this has disrupted the
flow of the story, it is easy enough to just go back over what was read a second time.
20
For example, “Russell the sheep was perfecting his triple somersault” – who
here knows how to do a somersault? A somersault is when you roll over
(gestures added) – look, like Nathan is showing us! That’s a somersault. We’ll
try some somersaults on the oval later this afternoon. So “Russell the sheep was
perfecting his triple somersault” – rolling over three times in a row – “when he
was distracted by a passing crow”. (Scotton, 2006)
Bringing words to life
Dramatisation
This is the fun part. Have you ever tried to describe limping without actually doing a
demonstration? Showing can be far more powerful than describing, and great fun can
be had when students join in. Picture the whole class limping – they will soon have the
idea. Contrasting with not limping also adds to the understanding of the word. Then
acting out scenarios that result in limping further add to the enjoyment.
For example: “Josh imagine your running in a race and you suddenly trip over a
rock. Start running and now…TRIP! Oh dear, I guess when you get up you’ll
be limping because you’ve hurt your…..”
Drawing pictures
Visual representation of meaning is powerful and a quick diagram or icon to represent
the underlying concept (eg a sad face to accompany the explanation of despondent) can
help clarify meaning. Pictures can include a quick sketch to show for example, the
sequence of events that result in a new word. Students can also be encouraged to draw
pictures that represent the situations that the new word might apply to. This is
particularly useful for younger children and can serve as a meaning prompt in the
process of vocabulary acquisition.
Linking to personal experiences
21
This is an essential part of establishing meaning, as it is often the personal situations (or
the powerful situations) that help commit word meanings to memory. For example the
child who has recently twisted their ankle during soccer can use this experience to map
the word limping into their lexicon. The child whose budgie escaped and flew away
may well associated this experience with feeling despondent, and the student who has
just been watching a documentary on great white sharks might use this association to
understand the word sinister. Personal experiences add meaning and help connect a
new word to more specific, differentiated understandings. Discussions about personal
experiences also provide opportunities to give additional models of the new vocabulary,
and for the students to practice using new words.
Hands on experiences
For young children and particularly children with language learning disabilities there is
nothing quite like hands on experiences to map words onto real, concrete situations.
For these children, hands on experiences may be needed to learn Tier 1 words. For
example, getting stuck in mud – the problem in Mr Gumpy’s Motor Car (Burningham,
1973) – can be demonstrated by making mud and contrasting moving a toy car along
wet bitumen then trying to move a toy car through some sticky mud. Giving children
turns at pushing the car and letting them feel the gooey mud serve to very clearly
explain what mud is and what it is like. After these experiences, events in the story
such as “The car sank deeper into the mud.“Now we’re really stuck” said Mr Gumpy.
They all got out and pushed.” will have more salient meaning.
Humour
The power of over-acting, being funny and even ridiculous add power to explanations.
It is hard to forget the sight of your teacher, hand on forehead, groaning as they limp
around the classroom having just “tripped” over an imaginary dog, uttering
despondently that they might never be able to walk properly again and they will have to
limp to school , limp to the classroom, and limp around the oval during fitness, no doubt
beginning to feel limp at the thought of all the limping. We want children to be
intrigued by words and to have fun with words. This is in fact, the earliest stages of
22
language based humour, when children start to move beyond slapstick into the realms of
meaning manipulations for the purpose of entertainment. Who can forget, “How did the
tissue climb out of the bucket of water? It limped.”
Guiding and mapping meaning
Connecting meanings
Guiding children’s understanding and meaning associations is critical. We need to
know if understandings are inaccurate as this helps to create more specific and accurate
definitions and connections. For example, the child that connects the word “grab”
specifically someone snatching their texta away while they are still using it, may
misinterpret the subtle meaning difference of this word in other contexts, such as “Let’s
grab a burger on the way home tonight.” For children with language impairments, this
point of securing accurate and multiple applications of meaning is especially important.
Word webs are one approach to mapping meaning, for example a word web or concept
map (e.g. Brace, Brockhoff, Sparkes, & Tuckey, 2006) about sheep could outline
habitat, diet, products, and physical descriptions. Alternately a word web could map
synonyms, so that we might have ‘sad’ as the central word, mapping synonyms around
it – despondent, unhappy, low, upset, dejected, miserable, gloomy. It is also useful to
explore scales of meaning, so that we might consider sadness on a continuum from just
a little bit sad (unhappy, gloomy) through to extremely sad (despondent, miserable).
Lubliner (2006) uses “word scales”, and locates “strong and interesting words” on a
scale from minimal levels (eg annoyed = a little bit mad) through to intense (eg livid =
really mad). Similarly Westby (2004) uses “emotional thermometers” to map feelings
words, for example going from dismayed to petrified as expressions of fear.
Deriving meanings
Of the 10,000 unfamiliar words American 5th graders are likely to come across during
reading, an estimated 40% of these words will be derivates of other, more frequently
occurring words (Nagy, Osborn, Winsor, & O'Flahaven, 1994). Knowledge of root or
23
base words, therefore, can help students build meaning. If, for example, a student is
familiar with the root aqua, meaning water, even though they have not come across
aqueous or aquatic before, they could possibly work out that these have something to do
with water. These base words can be systematically taught as a support strategy for
vocabulary building and in conjunction with work on prefixes and suffixes (See
Annandale et al., 2005; Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2008) add to
students’ repertoire of strategies to help them to work out meanings.
Practice & inspiration
Getting pronunciation right
One critical aspect of word learning is how the word is actually said. A clear
phonological representation of the word is necessary in order to precisely store it in the
lexicon and to differentiate it from similar sounding words. For example, many
language impaired children have difficulty differentiating telescope, microscope and
binoculars from a sound pattern point of view, even though they might be able to mime
their different uses. For children who are not efficient word learners, attention to the
detail of the sound patterns is necessary, followed by practice saying the word on its
own, and then saying the word in sentences, the latter being more phonologically
demanding and requiring a more stable underlying representation. This in turn supports
retrieval of the word both for speaking and writing.
Practice tasks
Multiple exposures to new words facilitates their acquisition (Hargrave & Senechal,
2000; Senechal, 1997). There are many examples of activities that facilitate practising
new words so that children become confident in their use, making these words an
“active part of their vocabularies” (Beck et al., 2002). For example, sentence
completions or close activities (e.g. Lubliner, 2006), associations (I feel ecstatic
when…), building relationships between new words such as ‘Would you be despondent
if something exhilarating happened?’ (Beck et al., 2002), and group discussion, for
24
example on reading “Russell and the Lost Treasure” children could talk about their
‘treasures’ and perhaps bring some in for show and tell.
Adding intrigue
Without doubt parents’ and educators’ enthusiasm for words, interest in the pursuit of
meaning, capacity to be playful with words, and belief in the power of words serve as
inspiration for children’s language learning. Passing this baton on to children in a way
that is builds on and is respectively of home and community literacy practices, and that
acknowledges the effort involved for children with language learning difficulties, is the
speech-language pathologist’s language mission!
Conclusion
This paper has discussed literate oral language pedagogy - how the thread of explicit
oral language instruction can be woven into the cloth of curriculum. Even though it is
yet to be established whether or not this immersion in vocabulary instruction or
“vocabulary instruction flooding” is feasible in ‘real time’ teaching, (Pressley, Disney,
& Anderson, 2007) it is nevertheless clear that children whose language learning
experiences don’t prepare them for the language of literacy and school, need regular
oral language instruction embedded into their day to day learning in order to redress the
significant school language and literacy disadvantage that can result from cultural and
linguistic differences.
Literacy is like an engine that is essential in the drive for freedom. If literacy is the
engine, then language is the fuel by which the engine operates. Not just any fuel though
– our Western literacy engine requires enriched, highly literate fuel. Without this the
literacy engine sputters, and freedom becomes an uncertain journey.
25
References
Alderete, A., Frey, S., McDaniel, N., Romero, M., Westby, C., Dr, & Roman, R. (2004).
Developing vocabulary in school. Vocabulary Instruction: Research and practice.
New York: The Guilford Press.
Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.),
Comprehension and Teaching: Research Reviews (pp. 77-116). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Annandale, K., Bindon, R., Borz, J., Dougan, J., Handley, K., Johnston, A., et al.
(2005). First Steps Writing Resource Book (Second ed.). Australia: Pearson Rigby.
Arnold, D. S., Lonigan, C. J., Whitehurst, G. J., & Epstein, J. N. (1994). Accelerated
language development through picture-book reading: Replication and extension to
a videotape training format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 235-243.
Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2008). Words Their Way: Word
Study For Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction. New Jersey: Pearson
Education.
Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary
instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74(4), 506-521.
Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, K. (2002). Bringing Words To Life: Robust
Vocabulary Instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.
26
Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Omansen, R. C. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse
vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. G. McKeown, & M. E. Curtis (Eds.),
The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 147-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bernstein, B. (1964). Elaborated and restricted codes: Their social origins and some
consequences. American Anthropologist, 66(6), 55-69.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brace, J., Brockhoff, v., Sparkes, N., & Tuckey, J. (2006). First Steps Speaking and
Listening Resource Book (Second ed.). Melbourne, Victoria: Rigby.
Burgess, S. R., & Lonigan, C., J. (1998). Bidirectional relations of phonological
sensitivity and prereading abilities: Evidence from a preschool sample. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 70, 117-141.
Burningham, J. (1973). Mr Gumpy's Motor Car. New York: Harper Collins Children's
Books.
Bus, A. G. (2002). Joint caregiver-child storybook reading: A route to literacy
development. In S. B. Neuman, & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early
Literacy Research (pp. 179-191). New York: The Guilford Press.
Calfee, R. C., & Drum, P. A. (1986). Research on teaching reading. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 804-849). New York:
Macmillan.
Carle, E. (2004). Mr Seahorse. New York: Philomel Books.
27
Collins. (2002). Dictionary and Thesaurus (2nd ed.) Harper Collins.
Cronbach, L. J. (1942). An analysis of techniques for diagnostic vocabulary testing.
Journal of Educational Research, 36, 206-217.
Culatta, B., Aslett, R., Fife, M., & Setzer, L. A. (2004). Project SEEL: Part I. systematic
and engaging early literacy instruction. Communication Disorders Quarterly,
25(2), 79-88.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its
relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental
Psychology, 33(6), 934-945.
Dale, E. (1965). Vocabulary measurement: Techniques and major findings. Elementary
English, 42, 82-88.
deBono, E. (1999). Six Thinking Hats (Second ed.). New York: First Back Bay.
DeTemple, J. (2001). Parents and children reading books together. In D. K. Dickinson,
& P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning Literacy with Language (pp. 31-51). Baltimore:
Paul H Brookes Publishing Co.
Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., & Essex, M. J. (2006). A window of opportunity we
must open to all: The case for preschool with high-quality support for language and
literacy. In D. Dickinson K., & S. Neuman B. (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy
Research Volume 2 (First ed., pp. 11-28). New York: The Guilford Press.
28
Dickinson, D. K., & Snow, C. E. (1987). Interrelationships among prereading and oral
language skills in kindergartners from two social classes. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 2, 1-25.
Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Poe, M.
D. (2003). The comprehensive language approach to early literacy: The
interrelationships among vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge
among preschool-aged children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 465-
481.
Duke, N. K., Purcell-Gates, V., Hall, L. A., & Tower, C. (2007). Authentic literacy
activities for developing comprehension and writing. The Reading Teacher, 60(4),
344-355.
Genishi, C., & Dyson, A. H. (2009). Children, Language and Literacy: Diverse
Learners in Diverse Times. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gillam, S. L., Fargo, J. D., & Robertson, K. S. C. (2009). Comprehension of expository
text: Insights gained from think-aloud data. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 18(1), 82-94.
Girolametto, L., & Weitzman, E. (2002). Responsiveness of child care providers in
interactions with toddlers and preschoolers. Language, Speech and Hearing
Services in Schools, 33 , 268-281.
29
Hammett, L. A., Van Kleeck, A., & Huberty, C. (2003). Patterns of parents' extratextual
interactions during book sharing with preschool children: A cluster analysis study.
Reading Research Quarterly, 38(4), 442-468.
Hargrave, A., & Senechal, M. (2000). A book-reading intervention with preschool
children who have limited vocabularies: The benefits of regular reading and
dialogic reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(1), 75-90.
Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating
Scale (Revised ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful Differences in The Everyday Experiences of
Young American Children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1992). American parenting of language-learning children:
Persisting differences in family-child interactions observed in natural home
environments. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1096-1105.
Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school.
Language in Society, 11, 49-76.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and
Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hindman, A., & Wasik, B. (2006). Bringing words to life: Optimizing book reading
experiences to develop vocabulary in young children. In A. Van Kleeck (Ed.),
Sharing Books and Stories to Promote Language and Literacy: A Volume in the
Emergent and Early Literacy Series (pp. 231-268). San Diego: Plural Publishing.
30
Hirsch, J. E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge - of words and the
world. American Educator, Spring, 10-45.
Horowitz, R., & Samuels, J. (1987). Comprehending oral and written language: Critical
contrasts for literacy and schooling. In R. Horowitz, & J. Samuels (Eds.),
Comprehending Oral and Written Language (pp. 1-52). San Diego: Academic.
Juel, C., Biancarosa, G., Coker, D., & Deffes, R. (2003). Walking with rosie: A
cautionary tale of early reading instruction. Educational Leadership, 60(7), 12.
Justice, L. M., & Pence, K. (2005). Scaffolding with Storybooks: A Guide for Enhancing
Young Children's Language and Literacy Achievement. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2004). Print referencing: An emergent literacy
enhancement strategy and its clinical applications. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 35(2), 185-193.
Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2004). Embedded-explicit emergent literacy
intervention I: Background and description of approach. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 35(3), 201-211.
Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A., Pence, K. L., & Wiggins, A. (2008). Experimental
evaluation of a preschool language curriculum: Influence on children's expressive
language skills. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 51(4), 983-
1001.
31
Kamil, M. L. (2004). Vocabulary and comprehension instruction. In P. McCardle, & V.
Chhabra (Eds.), The Voice of Evidence in Reading. Baltimore: Brookes.
Krashen, S. (1976). Formal and informal linguistic environments in language
acquisition and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 214-234.
Lubliner, S. (2006). Getting into Words: Vocabulary Instruction that Strengthens
Comprehension. Baltimore: Paul H Brookes.
McFalls, E. L., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Stahl, S. A. (1996). Influence of word meaning
on the acquisition of a reading vocabulary in second-grade children. Reading and
Writing, 8(3), 235-250.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P., & Anderson, R. (1985). Learning words from context.
Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233-253.
Nagy, W. E., Osborn, J., Winsor, P., & O'Flahaven, J. (1994). Structural analysis: Some
guidelines for instruction. In F. Lehr, & J. Osborn (Eds.), Reading, Language, and
Literacy: Instruction for The Twenty-First Century (pp. 45-58). Hillsdale, New
Jersey: Erlbaum.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the
National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence Based
Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications
for Reading Instruction. (NIH publication no. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
32
Neuman, S. B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading
Research Quarterly, 34(3), 286-311.
Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. (2006). The knowledge gap: Implications of leveling the
playing field for low-income and middle-income children. Reading Research
Quarterly, 41(2), 176-201.
Neuman, S. E. (2006). The knowledge gap: Implications for early education. In D.
Dickinson K., & S. Neuman B. (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research:
Volume 2 (pp. 29-40). New York: The Guilford Press.
NICHD Early Childhood Research Network. (2005). Pathways to reading: The role of
oral language in the transition to reading. Developmental Psychology, 41(2), 428-
442.
Nicholson, T., & Whyte, B. (1992). Matthew effects in learning new words while
listening to stories. In C. K. Kinzer, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy Research, Theory,
and Practice: Views From Many Perspectives: Forty-First Yearbook of the
National Reading Conference (pp. 499-503). Chicago, IL: The National Reading
Conference.
Pressley, M., Disney, L., & Anderson, K. (2007). Landmark vocabulary instructional
research and the vocabulary instructional research that makes sense now. In R.
Wagner, A. Muse & K. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary Acquisition: Implications
for Reading Comprehension (pp. 205-232). New York: The Guilford Press.
33
Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergarteners helps them
learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 54-64.
Rosenshine, B. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational
Leadership, 43(7), 60-69.
Rowling, J. K. (1999). Harry Potter and The Prisoner Of Azkaban. London:
Bloomsbury.
Rush, K. L. (1999). Caregiver-child interactions and early literacy development of
preschool children from low-income environments. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 19(1), 3-12.
Schwanenflugel, P. J., Stahl, S. A., & McFalls, E. L. (1997). Partial work knowledge
and vocabulary growth during reading comprehension. Journal of Literacy
Research, 20, 531-553.
Scotton, R. (2006). Russell and the Lost Treasure. New York: Harper Collins.
Senechal, M. (1997). The differential effect of storybook reading on preschoolers'
acquisition of expressive and receptive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language,
24(1), 123-138.
Snicket, L. (1999). A Series of Unfortunate Events: The Bad Beginning. New York:
Harper Collins.
34
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties
in Young Children/Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young
Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Snow, C. E. (2004). What counts as literacy in early childhood? In K. McCartney, & D.
Phillips (Eds.), Handbook of Early Child Development . Oxford: Blackwell.
Snow, C. E., Tabors, P. O., & Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Language development in the
preschool years. In D. K. Dickinson, & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning Literacy
with Language (pp. 1-25). Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing Co.
Stahl, S. (1999). Vocabulary Development. Brookline, MA: Bookline Books.
Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursers to
reading: Evidence from a longitudinal model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934-
947.
Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word learning while reading:
A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 261-285.
Tabors, P. O., Roach, K., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Home language and literacy
environment: Final results. In D. K. Dickinson, & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning
Literacy with Language: Young Children Learning at Home and School (pp. 111-
138). Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing Co.
Thompson, R. A. (2004). Development in the first years of life. In E. F. Zigler, D. G.
Singer & S. J. Bishop-Josef (Eds.), Children's Play: The Roots of Reading (pp. 15-
31). Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.
35
Tizard, B., Cooperman, O., Joseph, A., & Tizard, J. (1972). Environmental effects on
language development: A study of young children in long-stay residential
nurseries. Child Development, 43, 337-358.
Tomblin, B. (2005). Literacy as an outcome of language development and its impact on
children's psychosocial and emotional development. In R. E. Tremblay, R. g. Barr
& R. D. Peters (Eds.), Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online]
(Accessed 20/06/06 ed., pp. 1--6). Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for
Early Childhood Development.
Torgesen, J. (2004). Preventing early reading failure—and its devastating downward
spiral. http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/index.htm
van Kleeck, A. (2007). Home talk and school talk: Helping teachers recognize cultural
mismatch. The ASHA Leader, 12(13), 23-24.
van Kleeck, A., & Beckley-McCall, A. (2002). A comparison of mothers' individual and
simultaneous book sharing with preschool siblings: An exploratory study of five
families. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 175-189.
van Kleeck, A., Gillam, R. B., Hamilton, L., & McGrath, C. (1997). The relationship
between middle-class parents' book-sharing discussion and their preschoolers'
abstract language development. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 40,
1261-1271.
Westby, C. (2004). 21st century literacy for a diverse world. Fola Phoniatrica Et
Logopaedica, 56, 254-271.
36
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy.
Child Development, 69, 848-872.
Williams, A. L. (2006). Integrating phonological sensitivity and oral language
instruction into enhanced dialogic reading. In L. M. Justice (Ed.), Clinical
Approaches to Emergent Literacy Intervention (pp. 261-294). San Diego: Plural
Publishing.
Winter, P. (2004). Respectful relationships : Listening to the voices of infants and
toddlers in care. Every Child, 10(2), 24-25. Retrieved from
http://search.informit.com.au.ezlibproxy.unisa.edu.au/fullText;dn=136291;res=AEI
PT
37
Cultural Insights Into Indigenous Literacies: Royal Far West School Case Study
Wendy Hanlen Wendy Hanlen Consultancy
38
INTRODUCTION
The Royal Far West School (RFWS) at Manly in Sydney is one of the participating schools in the Quality
Teaching Indigenous Project (QTIP) and is the subject of this case study. The QTIP project comes under
the umbrella of the Australian Government Quality Teaching Project in partnership with the New South
Wales (NSW) Department of School Education and focuses on teachers, teaching practices and styles in
the context of the teachers’ students, schools, and community. Each participating school has an academic
partner to provide a theoretical background and advice to the QTIP team in each school. Advice is in
accordance with the direction that the team wishes to develop their action learning plan. The RFWS team
includes the Principal (team leader), the Speech Therapist, the Aboriginal Education Assistant, some
Teachers and some Teachers’ Special Aids in a dynamic relationship.
There are two papers written on the case study. This paper focuses on the theoretical background;
professional development and advice provided to the RFWS QTIP team. The other paper, written by the
Principal and her QTIP team, focuses on the practical application of the team’s action learning plan, the
process of its development. It also explains the development of the ‘Sounds, words And Yarning’
(SWAY) program and the teaching styles and practices involved.
The success of the dynamic relationship between the academic partner and the other members of the
QTIP team , the team’s absolute commitment to improving outcomes for Indigenous students, the
eclectic and complementary variety of the team’s expertises and skills and good leadership sees RFWS
well positioned as a model. It took great courage for RFWS staff to invite the academic partner into the
classroom to sit in on lessons at each stage of the action learning plan development where staff put into
practice the styles and practices utilising their expertises in conjunction with professional development.
The academic partner and team members met immediately after lessons to debrief and refined anything
that emerged from the discussions. The children come there with their parents/carers from regions from
all over New South Wales for very short stays. There are significant numbers of Aboriginal students at
any given time and staff members are dedicated to teaching Aboriginal cultural knowledge with a focus
on language. The QTIP team sought to have professional development in language inclusive of
Aboriginal English, which includes Aboriginal cultural knowledge, and views of the world. The dialect of
AE provides linguistic access to Aboriginal cultural knowledge.
The RFWS is unique in a number of ways. The students are only there for a few days and programs are
relatively short. This gives staff the opportunity to refine what did not work last lesson and improve what
worked. The QTIP team works in equal partnership with the local Guringai Aboriginal Education
Consultative Group (AECG) in the planning, decision making, delivery and evaluation of programs. The
RFWS has a higher staff/student ratio than most other schools and this gives each staff member more
39
time to focus on their part in the delivery of programs. The team is exposed to students from a larger
variety of Aboriginal linguistic and cultural backgrounds in NSW, learning and behavioural difficulties
and they have immediate access to the parents/caregivers. The Quality Teaching framework
accommodates and supports teaching literacy and numeracy to Indigenous students through the inclusion
of Indigenous cultural knowledges, ways of knowing, language/s, the local Indigenous community
(AECG), social practices and experiences. Narratives are a culturally appropriate means to achieve this as
storytelling (‘yarning’) is one way that Indigenous peoples teach in a decontextualised way (Hanlen,
2002a). These teaching styles and practices are based on the Quality Teaching area of ‘Significance’
which addresses the culture, narratives and language in teaching literacy. The term ‘Aboriginal’ is
generally used in this paper in reference to Indigenous Australians in NSW and the term ‘Indigenous’ is
generally used in reference to Indigenous Australians nationally.
A SOCIOCULTURAL APPROACH A sociocultural perspective addresses the cultural, social, linguistic and demographics of the Indigenous
students in schools and communities.
From a sociocultural perspective, literacy as social practice relates Indigenous literacy to cultural beliefs, values and social practices of a child’s family and community situated in the contexts of social construction, social inequity, disadvantage and marginalisation. It includes the dynamic relationship between the perspectives and social practices of the child and family, and those of the teacher, curriculum, pedagogies, assessment and contemporary social issues, which collectively determine literacy outcomes (Comber & Kamler, 1997; Lankshear, 1998; Luke, 1994; 1998a; 1998b). (Hanlen, 2002a, p 25)
Every person has a cultural view of the world. This is how we interpret and make sense of what happens
around us. The Anglo-Australian cultural world view is the most dominant in Australia. Australia’s
parliamentary, judicial, education and bureaucratic systems were originally based on those of the British
and have now developed into a distinctly Anglo-Australian character. Evidence suggests that there are
cultural, social and linguistic issues that form the basis for Indigenous Australians (Eades, 1995, Hanlen,
2007; Lester & Hanlen 2004). To help understand these issues a little more clearly we need to know how
some fundamental cultural ways of knowing in Western and Indigenous societies are almost polemic.
Descartes was an early founder of Western philosophy (Meyer, 1998). His notion of ‘I think therefore I
am’ is egocentric in nature (Hanlen, 2002a, Meyer, 1998). It looks at the needs, rights and desires of the
individual, is the basis of competition and it eventually became the basis for capitalism (Hanlen, 2002a,
2007). Formal education, work, leisure, family, health and housing and so on are separated in different
bureaucratic departments. Aspects of life are often separated from each other and can be conceptualised
as being box-like or square shaped for ease of explanation (Hanlen, 2002a, 2007).
Indigenous world views consider the knowledge of oneself comes through others’ knowledge that you
exist through interaction with others (Meyer, 1998). All aspects of life are dynamic, for example, there
40
are kinship relationships which determine social obligations to each other, and education is a lifelong
process, not separate from family and other daily routine activities (Hanlen 2002a, Hanlen, 2007). Goals
of the community are more important than the goals of the individual. All aspects of life are
interconnected and dynamic and social practices are reciprocal and for ease of explanation, can be
described circular in nature. (Hanlen, 2002a, Hanlen, 2007).
If we accept conceptually that Western ways of knowing are square and that Indigenous ways of knowing
are circular then this produces difficulties for Indigenous students when they enter formal school
education and for teachers who may realise that their teaching strategies, good intentions and programs
are often not producing successful literacy and educational results (Hanlen, 2002a, Hanlen, 2007). The
Anglo-Australian cultural context of the classroom which is based on the beliefs, values, language and
social practices of Anglo-Australia and the language of the classroom is Standard Australian English
(SAE) (Eades, 1995). Indigenous children, prior to school, are fluent in Aboriginal English (AE), the first
language of most Aboriginal students in NSW and prior to school and onwards, they grow up in the
knowledge of their cultural view of the world and their families’ beliefs, values and social practices
(Hanlen, 2002a; Hanlen 2007). The children come to school waiting to learn in ‘circular’ concepts and the
teacher teaches using ‘square concepts’ (Hanlen, 2002a). Generally, what the teacher is saying does not
generally resinate or make sense to Aboriginal students, and they often cannot interpret the information
linguistically or conceptually (Hanlen, 2002a).
The Indigenous literacy and social practices discussed here are very much generalised and there are many
Indigenous Australians who have full literacy competency and some being gifted and talented. However,
the purpose of the discussions contained here is to inform educationalists and practitioners of situations
and issues that they may encounter in their interaction with Indigenous students, their families and
communities. Indigenous Australians live at the interface of two cultures (Nakata, 2001, Hanlen, 2002b).
Even in remote areas of Australia, Indigenous Australians’ everyday social practices may be centred on
Indigenous world views but they are also interacting to varying degrees in Anglo-Australian contexts in
terms of government interagencies, shopping, social clubs, education and so on. Generally, for non-
Indigenous Australians, most social practices involve some forms of literacy practices (Hanlen, 2002a,
2007). Waking in the morning, there may be the need to take a medication. Literacy competency is
required to read the medication instructions. The dynamic relationship between literacy and social
practices in Australian society determines that we need literacy competency for almost all aspects of life
for example, using an Automatic Teller Machine; filling in forms; notes to and from school for parents;
getting a driver’s license; minutes at social club meetings; looking up phone numbers; street directions;
reading a TV guide and so many more everyday daily routine activities (Hanlen, 2002a).
For those Indigenous Australians who have little or no literacy, they are often marginalised from
mainstreamed society (Hanlen, 2002b). The education system has seriously failed the educational needs
of Indigenous students in the past (Fletcher, 1989; Eades, 1995; Hanlen; 2002b). There has been money,
41
time, programs and good intentions invested in Indigenous education, yet there has been minimal
improvement in outcomes (Lester & Hanlen, 2004). It would appear that the QTIP program is now
addressing the real cultural and linguistic needs of Aboriginal students, through the area of ‘Significance’
which addresses the inclusion of Indigenous cultures and communities in school programs potentially
empowering Indigenous students with equity in SAE and the social protocols of Western society, not at
the expense of their own language and cultures, but continuing to value and nurture their home language
and cultural protocols. The linguistic skills gained when children are able to learn to read and write in
their first language/dialect are easily transferred to the learning of the second language/dialect (Hagan,
1987). Aboriginal children in NSW generally speak Aboriginal English (AE) as their first dialect.
Education staff need to be empowered with skills to identify the needs of the students in their locality,
working in partnership with the local Indigenous community (AECG) and includes the provision of
strategies for staff to address these needs.
Due to poor literacy competency generally in Aboriginal families, the children are not exposed to the
levels of literacy practices associated with social practices that most non-Indigenous Australian children
are exposed to before they go to school (Hanlen, 2002a). Education practitioners need to know what AE
is and have an idea of which students in their school may speak it (Lester & Hanlen, 2004) so that they
can discern the difference between language difference and learning difficulties, and cultural differences
and behavioural problems (Eades, 1995, Hanlen, 1998). Culture is embedded in language (Eades, 1995)
hence the need to become aware of the cultural, social and linguistic implications for Indigenous students
at school in the students’ communities and school localities.
ABORIGINAL ENGLISH
Aboriginal English is rule governed and is as linguistically complex as any other dialect of English
whether it be Australian, American, Scottish and so on. Children speaking dialects of the standard
language of countries around the world are found to be some of the most disadvantaged children
educationally (see Eades, 1995; Hagan, 1987). There are seventy two different Aboriginal language
groups in NSW. Each variety of AE is influenced by the students’ traditional language. While most
Aboriginal students in NSW may never have heard their traditional language spoken, nevertheless, the
English that they speak today is influenced by the English that was learned and passed on by their
families for around four or five generations. Aboriginal Englishes have their own phonology (sound
system), morpho-syntax (grammar), lexico-semantics (words and meaning), pragmatics (how language is
used) and paralinguistic features (communication means other than the spoken word) (Eades, 1995).
Differences in these fields may vary between students and regions. It is only possible to demonstrate that
there are differences but it is not possible to do this in any detail so it is best to refer practitioners to the
work of Dr Diana Eades who has researched the Aboriginal Englishes of Queensland and NSW and who
42
wrote the book ‘Aboriginal English’ which is a part of the ‘Aboriginal Literacy Resource Kit’ (NSW
Board of Studies, 1995). The examples given here are extremely minimal.
In traditional Aboriginal languages there is no [th] sound and this may mean that some Aboriginal
students may pronounce it with a [d] sound for example, ‘this’ and ‘that’ may be pronounced ‘dis’ and
‘dat’ (Eades, 1995). Some grammatical structures are similar to other non-standard varieties of AE for
example, ‘I seen nothing’ which in SAE means ‘I have seen nothing’. Traditional language structure can
influences based AE language structure for example, ‘’e good girl’ where the pronoun in traditional
languages are non-gendered and there is no copula (verb ‘to be’) (Eades, 1995). There are different word
meanings for example, ‘deadly’ in AE means ‘great, terrific, good and in SAE it means ‘having the
potential to kill’ (Eades, 1995). The area of how English is used by speakers of AE is probably the most
difficult for teachers and students alike and it is more likely to be the similarities between the dialects that
are the cause of misinterpretation and communication breakdown because speakers of both may recognise
the words that each other use and they may think that they have mutual intelligibility, for example,
although many students do, some may not use ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ as in traditional languages these
protocols were not necessary due to the reciprocal nature of their kinship obligations not requiring this.
...to understand a speaker’s meaning it is not enough to know meanings of words and phrases and to understand grammar. We also need to understand the speaker’s cultural background, often called the socio-cultural context. (Eades, 1992. p.26)
‘Gratuitous concrrence’ means that:
Aboriginal English speakers often agree to a question even if they do not understand it. That is when Aboriginal people say “yes” in answer to a question it often does not mean “ I agree with what you are asking me”. Instead, it often means “I think that if I say “yes” you will see that I am obliging, and socially amenable and you will think well of me, and things will work out between us”. (Eades, 1992. p.26)
One paralinguistic feature includes ‘eye contact avoidance’ (Eades, 1995) due to cultural protocols
which consider that it is rude and confronting to look someone in the eye who is older than you,
someone of the opposite sex and someone who is in a position of authority, and teachers would be
in at least two of these categories. Another is long periods of silence when they are asked
questions and between utterances (Eades, 1995).
DISCOURSES
Indigenous families teach their children in contextualised hands on learning situations with little or no
verbal instruction and teach in decontextualised situations using storytelling ‘yarning’ (Hanlen, 2002a).
An Aboriginal woman in western NSW is a joint primary carer for her grand/great grandchildren. She
describes the role of adults in teaching children below:
43
With your children I think they take notice of what you do… An’ a man does this and Mum does that. If you want the child to take notice and learn things, y’ got ‘o do things... You get a nineteen… year-old boy an’ showin’ his little brother how t’ play basket ball or football. I think the huncles [uncles], they’ve got a good say in things too you know, in sports… They all play a part with kids… Kids are not taught much now... All this (the old practices) is lost now with the kids like when we were kids, our family members used t’ teach us… tell us stories. In those days a lot of people didn’t read an’ write. But their stories were good. They was there t’ share it with their children round the campfire... We’d all sit around it. Mum an’ Dad an’ my older sisters… We were told everythink then. (YT3 44-95) (Hanlen, 2002a pp. 193-194)
There are a number of taken-for-granted discourses in Anglo-Australia that may be interpreted very
differently by Indigenous students. For example, ‘What do you want be when you grow up?’ An
Indigenous student may reply in dismay, ‘A woman/man’! We need to note that it is not generally the
experience of many Indigenous children to have family members in chosen careers in formal employment
and this is not something that is discussed as it is generally in mainstream society where a young child
may reply ‘a helicopter pilot’ for example.
Verbal teaching in Indigenous communities may consist of short statements about introducing the
children to their environment or family members for example, ‘this your aunty’ or ‘this a leaf’ but it is
generally done in context (Eades, 1995). Anglo-Australian parents often teach in abstracts and use
question/answer format for example, the minute a baby is born it is common for family members to see
the new baby screw up its face and the adult may say ‘Oh, what’s the matter?’ and when baby burps it is
followed up with something like ‘Oh that’s what it was, you had a pain in the tummy’. When the child is
a little older, adults may say ‘Where’s Mummy/Daddy gone?’ and follow it up with, ‘There she/he is!’
Non-Indigenous Australians generally are exposed to the question/answer format from the minute they
are born. By the time they enter school they are quite familiar with the Anglo-Australian cultural context
of the classroom which relies heavily on teachers’ use of this format as it is the most efficient means to
elicit information. However, in Aboriginal communication this can be very confronting and even
offensive. In AE a question takes the form of a short statement followed by the tag ‘eh’ for example, ‘the
kids are back, eh?’ (see Eades, 1995).
... there are considerable culturally different assumptions about appropriate and effective ways of seeking information. These different assumptions are often present even where both parties are speaking very similar varieties of English.... Information is sought as part of a two-way exchange. Silence and waiting till people are ready to give information, are also central to Aboriginal ways of seeking any substantial information. (Eades, 1992, pp. 27- 28)
The issue of language/dialect difference also impacts on numeracy for teaching and assessment of
Indigenous students. When asked, quantifiable questions there are different Indigenous cultural
responses to those of Anglo-Australia.
44
...Aboriginal speakers often tend not to use expressions of quantifiable specification, or to use them vaguely, inaccurately or inconsistently... Aboriginal specification in statements (including replies to questions) frequently refers to physical, social, geographical, climatic events and states of affairs. For example, time reference for past or future events usually involves reference to a social event or situation, rather than clocktime or calendar time. (Eades, 1992. p.29)
IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING INDIGENOUS STUDENTS’ NEEDS
It is important for practitioners to value, respect and occasionally allow the use of AE and Indigenous
protocols in the classroom for specific activities especially in the early childhood period. However, it is
vitally important for Indigenous students to be empowered in SAE and Western protocols so that they can
compete equitably in educational and employment opportunities but not at the expense of their first
dialect.
• Make a contrast analysis of work samples, conversations and interactions between Indigenous
students with each other, their non-Indigenous peers and with the teachers themselves by writing
down each instance where the teacher perceives that the language and protocols used are
different to SAE and Western protocols.
• See if any patterns emerge for individuals or a number of students
Complex issues need not be complicated to address. As far as possible address all language and cultural
issues in class instruction time rather than continuing to address individuals which could damage self-
esteem.
• It is important to stress that there are different ways of saying/doing this but the language/ways
of the classroom are… Don’t forget to say why we do it this way in the classroom and remember
that this is never at the expense of their first language or their cultural protocols. For example,
“Sometimes we can say ‘butfly’ (AE) and sometimes we can say ‘butterfly’ but in the classroom
we always say ‘butterfly’ because that is the language of the classroom and the workplace”.
“Sometimes we do not need to say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’, but in the classroom we always use
‘please’ and ‘thank you’ because that is the way of the workplace...”
• Give a purpose for everything even if it means often stating, what you may perceive to be, the
obvious.
• “We go to school so that we can learn what we need to know in order to choose the type of job
we would like when we leave school”.
• When teaching geometry, for example, the teacher can say that “we are learning about geometry
because this is useful to know, for example, if you buy something in a kit form and it needs to be
45
assembled, knowing about measurement and angles may be necessary”. Students may be
interested in becoming a builder, carpenter, fashion designing or architect and knowing these
concepts could be useful.
• Be sure to maintain these practices from early childhood education right through to the last week
of high school education. Through no fault of their own many Indigenous parents may not have
been empowered with SAE or Western protocols. It then becomes the role of teachers at the
interface with students in the classroom to ensure that all Australian students are empowered in
SAE and Western protocols. Fortunately, what works with Indigenous students also works with
affirmation for non-Indigenous students (see Eades, 1995; Hanlen, 2002c).
CONCLUSION
It is anticipated that the theoretical background and the RFWS case study may be useful to all teaching
and education practitioners in NSW and hopefully beyond to provide cultural, social, linguistic and
demographic connections from the time Indigenous students enter education contexts and maintain these
throughout the formal education. Otherwise, Indigenous students run the risk of ‘downing tools’ as early
as the age of five years (Munns, 1996) and pass through the motions of school education without ever
engaging with curriculum, teachers and leaving school without being empowered with literacy to choose
the what they want to do in future employment (Hanlen, 2002a, Hanlen, 2007).
46
REFERENCES Eades, D. (1995). Aboriginal English. Sydney: Aboriginal Literacy Resource Kit, New South Wales
Board of Studies.
Eades, D. (1992). Aboriginal English and The Law. Queensland: Continuing Legal Education Department
of the Queensland Law Society
Hagen, A. (1987). Dialect speaking and school education in Europe, Sociolinguistica, vol. 1 pp. 61-79.
Hanlen, (1998). Same Language, different lingo. EQ Australia: Literacy & Numeracy. Victoria:
Curriculum Corporation. Issue 1 Autumn. ISSN 1320-2944 pp. 22-24
Hanlen, W. (2000a). Emerging literacy in New South Wales rural and urban Indigenous families.
Doctoral Thesis (Unpublished). University of Newcastle
Hanlen, W. (2000b). Learning from the Centre not the Margin. International Journal of Learning. Vol. 9.
Article LCO2-0096-2002
Hanlen, W. (2007) Indigenous Literacies: moving from social construction towards social justice. In L.
Makin, C. Jones Diaz & C. McLachlan (Eds.). 2nd Ed. Literacies in Childhood. Sydney:
MacLennan and Petty. pp. 230-240.
Lester, J. & Hanlen, W. (2004). Report on the Aboriginal Education Policy Review.. Umulliko
Indigenous Higher Education & Research Centre, University of Newcastle for The NSW
Department of Education & Training.
Meyer, M. (1998). Native Hawaiian epistemology: Contemporary narratives. Unpublished Degree of
Doctor of Education, Harvard University, United States. Unpublished.
Munns, G. (1996). The school as a cubbyhouse: Koori students, their teachers and the curriculum in an
inner city primary school, Macarthur University, Sydney. [Internet] Available:
http://www.swin.edu.au/aare/96pap/munng96.270
Nakata, M. (2001), (Edition 1, Wednesday, February 21, 2001). Cross-Cultural Consideration. The
Australian, p. 41.
47
Teachers learning about grammar: experiences and challenges during a graduate TESOL paper
Maree Jeurissen The University of Auckland
48
Introduction I am a trained primary school teacher with qualifications including a Bachelor of Education, Graduate
Diploma in Teaching English in Schools to Speakers of Other Languages, and a Masters in Applied
Language Studies. Despite these qualifications my understanding of English grammar is often not
explicit enough to be able to identify or explain grammatical features in texts. Currently, I lecture on a
graduate TESSOL (Teaching English in Schools to Speakers of Other Languages) programme to
practicing primary and secondary school teachers and have discovered anecdotally that many of these
teachers also lack an explicit knowledge of English grammar.
In response to this apparent lack of knowledge, the programme’s teaching team (five lecturers including
myself) decided in 2004 to include a grammar component on the course. This paper describes some of our
experiences and challenges. In order to contextualise these, international literature and research in the
area of teachers’ knowledge about grammar is also reviewed. This review, coupled with our own
observations prompted a research project investigating the knowledge and beliefs about grammar
teaching held by teachers currently on the course. Preliminary findings from the project will be outlined
along with emerging implications for teachers and teacher educators.
Background: teaching grammar within the TESSOL programme In 2004 lecturers teaching on the TESSOL programme decided to adopt a more explicit approach to the
teaching of grammar than had previously been implemented. This decision was based on international
trends towards a more explicit approach to the teaching of grammar (Ellis, 2006) and a belief that our
teachers needed a working knowledge of the English language to meet the needs of their English
Language Learners (ELLs). Along with Collerson, we believed that a knowledge of grammar would help
teachers “understand how language is being used and talk with children about their use of it” (1994, p.
vii).
The first challenge was selecting a core textbook, which would be useful and appropriate for both primary
and secondary teachers. As lecturers we favoured a functional approach to grammar, that is “a grammar
that shows them [children] how their language operates as a resource to make meaning and that helps
them to make informed choices as writers and speakers” (Scott, 1994, p. v). However, we knew teachers’
knowledge of grammar would be based on more traditional structural grammar which, in contrast to
functional grammar, views grammar teaching as “ the presentation and practice of discrete grammatical
structures” (Ellis, 2006, p. 84). Such an approach emphasises the teaching of form over meaning. It was
therefore important to select a text which would bridge teachers’ understanding between the two
approaches. We were mindful that innovations in classroom practice “be accommodated within the
teacher’s own framework of teaching principles” (Breen, Hird, Milton, Oliver, & Thwaite, 2001, p. 472).
The text chosen was Beverly Derewianka’s ‘A grammar companion for primary teachers’ (1998). This
book is written clearly and includes practical ideas for teachers to use in the classroom. Despite the title,
49
it has proven to be of value to secondary teachers, along with their primary counterparts. Derewianka
explains that the text is intended to extend teachers’ understandings of traditional approaches to teaching
grammar to include a functional perspective. As such she concedes that the book does not take a purely
functional approach (Derewianka, 1998).
Arguably one of the most significant challenges for the lecturers has been meeting the teachers’ disparate
grammar learning needs. Those enrolled in the programme (usually numbering between 80 and 90 in each
cohort) vary considerably in their explicit knowledge of English grammar. This explicit knowledge of
English grammar means having “sufficient metalinguistic knowledge both to explain grammatical rules
and to respond to learner error” (Elder, 1994, cited in Elder, Erlam, & Philp, 2007). When asked about
their explicit knowledge of English grammar, some teachers admit that they struggle to define simple
parts of speech such as nouns and verbs, whilst others report a sound understanding of traditional
grammar terms.
Not only do the teachers vary in their KAG, they also differ considerably in their previous learning
experiences, and their beliefs and attitudes towards the teaching of grammar. This means that the course
needs to be tailored to ensure each teacher is sufficiently challenged, whilst at the same time not
overwhelmed by too much new material. The overriding aim of the research project is to ascertain the
effectiveness of current approaches.
Literature Review
An literature search signalled three important questions which had relevance for the topic under
investigation:
1. What does knowledge about grammar (KAG) mean for teachers?
2. What is already known about teachers’ KAG?
3. Do teachers working with primary and secondary aged students need KAG?
What is knowledge about grammar?
Knowledge about grammar (KAG) (Borg, 2001) is a part of a broader construct: teachers’ knowledge
about language (KAL) or sometimes called teachers’ language awareness (TLA). Andrews (2003)
explains that TLA includes subject matter knowledge and language proficiency, metacognition, and an
awareness of the learner’s language needs. Put simply, “a linguistically aware teacher not only
understands how language works, but understands the student’s struggle with language and is sensitive to
errors and other interlanguage features” (Wright, 2002, cited in Elder, Erlam, and Philp, 2007, p. 226).
The TESSOL programme endeavours to support teachers to become ‘linguistically aware’ as Wright
describes. The current research project seeks to investigate teachers’ KAG as well as their beliefs about
grammar teaching.
50
What do we know about the extent of teachers’ KAG?
In recent years there has been increasing interest from second language acquisition (SLA) researchers in
teachers’ knowledge about language, including grammar. Researchers have investigated aspects such
teachers’ explicit or declarative KAG, their language proficiency, their beliefs, and pedagogical practices
and relationships between these (for examples see Andrews, 1999, 2001 & 2003; Borg, 1999, 2001,
2003a, 2003b; Bigelow & Ranney, 2005; Burgess & Etherington, 2002; Morris, 2003). Although most
research has investigated second and foreign language teaching situations, Andrews (2003) asserts that
many of the arguments and observations may apply to teachers of English as a mother tongue. A detailed
and comprehensive review of these studies can be found in Borg (2003a & 2003b). It is unnecessary to
replicate these reviews here, however to contextualise the current research project the pertinent key
findings can be summarised.
One trend to emerge was the generally low levels of teachers’ declarative KAG. The research studies
reviewed included pre-service primary trainees, post-graduate primary trainees, foreign language
teachers, English teachers, and native as well as non-native speakers of English. (all outlined in Borg,
2003b). These teachers generally held “inadequate levels of grammatical knowledge” (Borg, 2003b, p.
98). A more recent investigation of Malaysian trainee English teachers by Elder, Erlam, and Philp (2007)
mirror the findings in Borg’s 2003 review. They found that the trainees varied widely in their knowledge
and as a group performed “rather poorly” (Elder et al, 2007, p.233) on a metalinguistic knowledge test.
Borg (2003b) also reviewed studies which investigated teachers’ beliefs about formal instruction. Three
main conclusions are drawn from this review. Firstly it appears that formal instruction in grammar is still
prevalent in L2 and FL classrooms. Secondly, teachers reported the strong impact of their prior language
learning experiences, on their own beliefs about grammar teaching. Finally, there were considerable
differences between students and teachers regarding aspects of grammar teaching. It is suggested that
these differences may impact negatively on the effectiveness of formal instruction teachers provide (Borg,
2003b).
It seems evident from the literature reviewed that teachers and trainees, including language teachers, lack
an adequate declarative knowledge of grammar. As Borg laments in a more recent publication, many of
them may be “confidently ignorant” (2006, p.3) about grammar. Furthermore, teachers and students vary
considerably in their beliefs about the teaching of grammar.
Is KAG important for primary and secondary school teachers?
My own experiences teaching NSs and ELLs would indicate that students can learn to read, write, speak,
and listen despite my inadequate KAG. Students undertaking the TESSOL programme include secondary
subject teachers (e.g. mathematics, science, accounting), English teachers, foreign language teachers,
ESOL teachers, and mainstream primary teachers. A question they would no doubt like to ask me is: will
51
improving explicit knowledge of grammar help to teach ELLs and NS students more effectively? They
deserve carefully considered answers.
Explicit metalinguistic knowledge is not strongly linked with language proficiency (Alderson, Clapham &
Steel, 1997, p. 93). It is nevertheless “one component of the more global knowledge a language teacher
must call on in teaching grammar” (Borg, 2006, p. 112). An investigation of teachers’ perceptions of their
KAG found that this did indeed influence their practice in several ways including the extent to which they
taught grammar; their willingness to talk spontaneously about grammar, and the information they
provided their students about grammar (Borg, 2001). Further evidence is provided by Andrews (2001),
that a teacher’s actual KAG has considerable impact on pedagogical practice. He argues that teachers
need to be able to call upon a grammatical knowledge base which can be readily accessed as many
teaching tasks need “to be performed spontaneously and in ‘real time’” (Andrews, 2001, p. 81). When
supporting students in the extremely complex task of learning English then, knowledge of how the
language works is one tool language teachers should be able to call upon. But what about mainstream
teachers and subject teachers in secondary schools?
Ministry of Education documents illustrate the extent to which all teachers may need to call upon KAG.
The recently released New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) makes explicit the need for
students to have a sound and in depth understanding of the English language. The ability to communicate
accurately and fluently in both spoken and written modes is only one aspect of this understanding.
Students need to “know how language works so that they are equipped to make appropriate language
choices and apply them in a range of contexts” (Ministry of Education, 2007b, p.18). Moreover, the
English Curriculum includes the expectation for students at all levels to engage in critical literacy. This
requires students to understand how grammar works and is used by authors to convey meaning in texts.
Further to this, it is stated that each learning area (English, the arts, health and physical education,
learning languages, mathematics and statistics, science, social science, technology) “has its own language
or languages” (Ministry of Education, 2007b, p. 16). Students who are new learners of English, the
document states, “need explicit and extensive teaching of English vocabulary, word forms, sentence and
text structures, and language uses”(p. 16). This statement has implications for all teachers, including
secondary subject teachers. If teachers are to teach students about the word forms, sentence and text
structures and use of language in their subjects, then they need to have an explicit understanding of these
themselves.
Research with teacher trainees and L2 and FL practicing teachers indicates that KAG is an important part
of a teacher’s competency. It is acknowledged that explicit KAG “is not sufficient by itself to ensure that
that teachers will deal with grammar-related issues in ways which are most conducive to learning”
(Andrews, 2001, p. 83). However, without KAG, teachers don’t know what they don’t know. The
explicit references to grammar in the NZ Curriculum and other recently released documents (Draft
Literacy Learning Progressions, 2007a, and the English Language Learning Progressions, 2008) also
signal that KAG is a necessary aspect of teacher competence. Teachers and teacher educators need to
heed these signals.
52
Research Project
The teachers undertaking a graduate TESSOL course, were invited to participate in a research project
investigating their knowledge and beliefs about grammar and grammar teaching. The specific research
questions are:
1. Do primary school teachers’ beliefs and reported practices about grammar teaching alter during a
graduate TESSOL (Teaching English in Schools to Speakers of Other Languages) paper with a
specific focus on functional grammar?
2. Does teachers’ explicit knowledge about grammar improve during the course?
Teachers of students in years 5 though 8 were invited to take part in pre and post course interviews (see
Appendices A and B). Due to time constraints it has only been possible to interview a small number of
teachers hence the decision to focus on a more homogenous group. If the research is conducted with
cohorts in subsequent years, different year groups can be targeted. Six teachers in the target group
volunteered.
All teachers in the course (83 teachers including ESOL, mainstream primary and secondary subject
teachers) were invited to complete a grammar knowledge test (Appendix C) at the start, and then the end
of the course. It was explained that the tests were not part of the course assessment, but that teachers
should view the task as an opportunity for self-assessment. Thirty-six students volunteered and sat the
pre-test.
Grammar Knowledge Test
The teachers’ scores ranged from 16% to 100%. The mean was 47.8%, with a standard deviation of 20.6.
In raw scores, the range was from 5 to 30 out of 30. The distribution of scores can be seen in figure 1.
53
Figure 1 Distribution of raw scores for grammar knowledge pre-test
A correlation test showed no statistically significant differences between primary and secondary teachers’
scores. Similarly, there were no significant correlations between test scores and other variables: subjects
taught; age of teachers; number of years teaching; number of languages spoken; English as the first
language. With a relatively small number of scores, it is unlikely that statistically significant correlations
will emerge. There are however some interesting trends which begin to emerge, on close analysis of
some scores.
It was decided to look more closely at the scores of those teachers who may need to call upon KAG more
often in their teaching: ESOL teachers, and secondary English teachers. Six ESOL teachers, and five
English teachers sat the test. Their results are illustrated in tables one and two below.
Table 1: ESOL teachers’ KAG test scores
Name Age range English L1 Number of languages spoken
Score as %age
Nancy 35-44 Yes 1 23 Dayah 35-44 Yes 2 26 Val 25-34 Yes 1 38 Leanne 55-64 Yes 1 + 58 Sam 35-44 Yes 1 60 Diane 45-54 Yes 1 70
54
All except one of these teachers (Leanne) teach ESOL withdrawal groups in primary or intermediate
schools. Leanne is new this year to teaching ESOL to year 9 and 10 students, having previously taught
geography. None of the teachers have had specific training for their ESOL roles, until undertaking their
current study at the beginning of 2008. The average score for these ESOL teachers was 45%, similar to
the overall average. However, three of the ESOL teachers scored well below 50%.
Table 2: Secondary English teachers’ KAG test scores
Name Age range English L1 Number of languages spoken
Score as %age
Mia 25-34 Yes 1+ 45 Faye 25-34 Yes 2 45 Sue 25-34 Yes 1 65 Kate 25-34 Yes 1+ 96 Michelle 45-54 Yes 1 100
The average score for the secondary English teachers, 70%, is higher than that of the ESOL teachers, and
higher than that of the total sample of 36 teachers, at 47.8%. It is of interest and perhaps some concern
that two of these teachers scored below 50%. With a few exceptions, the KAG pre-test scores reflect
concerns for the ‘generally inadequate levels of grammatical knowledge held, especially by potential
language teachers’ (Borg, 2003, p. 98).
Perhaps one of the most interesting findings, is not with the scores that can be seen here, but rather, with
the fact that less than half of the teachers in the programme volunteered to sit the test. There are several
possible explanations for, and interpretations of, this somewhat disappointing response.
Firstly, the test was administered during class time, at the end of the usual two and half hour session.
Having taught all day, teachers arrived at class at 4.30pm. It could be that the opportunity to leave half an
hour early after a long and demanding day rather than sit the test was too tempting!
Another possible explanation could be teachers’ reluctance to sit the test because of fear of finding out
how inadequate their grammar knowledge might be, and an unwillingness to make this information
available to the lecturer. If this is the case, the scores which can be seen here, may be indicative of
teachers more able or confident in terms of their KAG. This problem of “volunteer bias” (Burgess &
Etherington, 2002, p. 437) needs to be acknowledged. The true average may be much lower than 47.8%.
Unfortunately, and frustratingly, there appears to be no current solution to finding more accurate
information about the KAG of all 83 teachers.
55
Perceived KAG
The interview questions were divided into three sections: perceived knowledge of grammar; beliefs about
grammar teaching; and pedagogical practices related to grammar. The emerging themes from each section
will be outlined and discussed.
When asked to describe their knowledge of English grammar all but one teacher described their
knowledge as adequate to sound. Although these teachers responded fairly confidently initially, they often
qualified their answers as they continued to talk. For example Kelly explained “It’s good, but it’s not
academic knowledge… in terms of actually knowing the technical names of things I’m not very good.”
Similarly Carmel qualified her answer: “ I have an adequate knowledge I suppose. I wouldn’t say I had an
excellent knowledge. I know there’s areas I have a weakness in.”
One teacher, Sian, was very confident, stating
I think my knowledge is fairly good, because I went to a private high school, and it was
traditionally taught… and I’m older than a lot of other people so I came through the schooling
system when it was taught.
The one exception was Leila who describes her knowledge as, “Pretty rubbish… I can write a
grammatically correct sentence but I don’t know how to go about it.”
Unfortunately not all the teachers who volunteered to be interviewed, volunteered to sit the test and so it
is not possible to compare their self-perceptions of KAG with their actual KAG as indicated by the test.
Table three compares teachers’ perceptions with test results where available. These teachers were quite
accurate in describing their KAG, although Leila seems to have a better understanding than she thinks.
When comparing her score with some other teachers, she is above average.
Table 3: Teachers’ self perception of KAG and test scores
Teacher Self-perception of KAG Grammar test
score %age Leila Pretty rubbish 56.7 Carmel Adequate, not excellent, areas of weakness 60% Sian Fairly good 70%
When asked what they thought had contributed to their levels of knowledge, teachers mentioned primary
and high school experiences, individual teachers, personal reading, parents, and being corrected in
academic writing as a student. None of the teachers mentioned teacher training, and even when asked
Kelly said, “there wasn’t a heck of a lot at training college about the nitty gritty of English. It was mostly,
no, I can’t remember doing a lot of grammar at training college.”
56
Four of the six teachers felt their knowledge of grammar was sufficient for teaching students they teach.
However, Kelly felt his knowledge was inadequate for working with ELLs saying
… because I’m teaching English second language kids I need to know the more technical sides of English so that I can isolate things and work on them. Not that I need to know the words for the kids, but just so that it’s clear in my own mind what I’m doing.
The responses reinforce anecdotal evidence gathered from the teachers, that perceived knowledge about
grammar varies greatly between individuals. It seems that KAG has been gleaned mainly from primary
and secondary schooling experiences, parents, and reading. This finding reflects Chandler’s (1988) study
with English teachers, who stated that their language learning experiences at school were their main
source of grammatical knowledge (cited in Borg, 2003b). Teachers have no immediate recollections of
grammar being included in their teacher training programmes.
Beliefs about grammar teaching
All teachers believe that explicit grammar teaching is important. Four teachers mentioned the importance
of teaching grammar in context. Carmel explains what she means by this approach.
I think there are times when you need to discuss things like tenses, but then move on to putting it into a context… you need to be able to put it into an authentic context…then when they’re writing… when they’re discussing, you use it in the correct tense for example.
Individual needs, or working with groups of students was mentioned by four teachers. These teachers
talked about the importance of noticing when students made specific errors in either speaking or writing,
and addressing these. For example, Carmel says
I also take out of samples of writing I pick up, where they’ve got a weakness and work with them as a group and try and construct say if it’s a sentence…as a group we’ll construct it together to make it make sense…
The beliefs espoused by the teachers here seem to indicate that despite the swing away from explicit
grammar teaching in the past, teachers now see a need for its inclusion in their programmes. This trend
reinforces Burgess and Etherington’s contention that “grammar is being rehabilitated” (2002, p.433).
Methods of approaching this teaching are however quite varied. This is not surprising as Ellis laments that
“more than 20 years of research have failed to yield firm guidelines for grammar teaching methodology”
(1994, cited in Borg, 1999, p. 157). The methods teachers reported implementing are outlined next.
Pedagogical Practices
The teachers were asked if they taught grammar in particular ways, and if so to give examples of these.
They were asked about formal teacher fronted lessons, correcting grammar in written and oral language,
and planning tasks with a specific grammatical focus.
All teachers stated that they do teach traditional teacher fronted lessons dealing with specific aspects of
grammar such as conjunctions or adjectives. These lessons are evidence that form focused instruction,
57
where the primary focus is on language form rather than meaning is happening in classrooms. Leila gives
a clear example.
We did this thing at the beginning of the year on what makes a sentence… and then we did subjects and predicates. I had no idea what that was about but I figured it out…so the kids were able to underline the subject and underline the predicate…
Another example of form focused instruction is given by Kay.
Yes, I do it often on a Friday. I do like a little half hour, 25 minute lesson, just teach the ‘why it’s there, when we use it’ give some examples then put a sentence up.
Some teachers did explain that the forms they chose to focus on in these lessons were related to common
errors in students’ work or specific writing tasks. Carmel explains:
I’ll choose an aspect of the language resources that are needed perhaps for a narrative or for a persuasive text. So, we’ll go through lots of texts and we’ll pull out those words and then we’ll make meaning of what that word is.
Whilst lessons such as these are focusing on a specific grammatical form, meaning is clearly paramount.
All teachers correct grammar in students’ writing, but vary in their approach to this. They prefer to correct
grammar while conferencing students about their writing, but explain that this is not always possible
because of time constraints. One teacher, Sian explained that correcting grammar in writing depends on
the learning intention for the lesson, saying that she would not correct grammar if the writing was
completed in a science lesson for example.
When asked about correcting students’ oral language all teachers said they made implicit corrections by
recasting, and also explicit corrections whereby they told a student they had made an error, and then
corrected them. Explicit correction of student talk including a metalinguistic explanation, was less
common. Only three teachers said they would do this and it seemed to be dependent on the student and
the situation. For example, Sian said
It depends on the child, particularly if they’re an ESOL child I will correct them, not all the time, but I will correct them… but I won’t always go into why we say it because at year 5 and 6 they won’t always have that understanding anyway…some Asian children they’ve been taught all the rules and they do know those rules so yes I would [give them a metalinguistic explanation].
When asked about planning tasks or activities with a grammatical focus, all teachers said that they did do
this, making the grammar focus clear to the students. Only three teachers said that they might plan a task
without making the grammar focus clear to the students, but this was usually for a specific purpose such
as assessing whether or not students had retained a grammar structure previously taught. For example
Kelly explained, “I had taught them earlier in the term that explanations were in present tense, I was kind
of interested to see if they’d remember and most of them had which is good.”
Making the grammar focus explicit to students is to be expected in New Zealand classrooms where
teachers are in the habit of explaining learning intentions. The importance of this aspect of formative
58
assessment, is clearly a shared understanding among teachers. Kelly’s explanation illustrates the ‘taken
for granted’ nature of this aspect of teaching and learning: “yes, that [sharing the learning intention for
specific tasks] would be the general rule. That’s been handed to us over the years – have a learning
intention, relate it to an activity.”
With such ingrained understandings it is not surprising that planning tasks where the grammar focus was
made explicit to the students was identified by three of the teachers as the most frequent way they dealt
with grammar in their classroom. Two teachers reported that their most frequent practice would be to
correct individual students and deal with grammar incidentally, and one teacher, Sian, said she would use
all methods, depending on the situation.
One clear finding then, is that teachers explicitly teach grammar in their classrooms. The ways they do
this varies considerably, although form focused instruction was reportedly happening in all six teachers’
classrooms. Planning lessons with a specific grammatical focus which is made evident to the students
seems to be a common approach to dealing with grammar, whilst providing metalinguistic explanations
about errors is less frequent.
Implications and Next Steps
In drawing to a close, it does not seem appropriate to have a conclusion or recommendations, as the
research project has only just begun. However, some tentative statements about what has emerged thus far
can be made, along with implications for teacher educators and further research.
The concern raised in the introduction about teachers’ KAG, has been substantiated. Teachers’
declarative knowledge about grammar varies considerably, with many having poor levels of
understanding, including some who teach English, and some who teach English as a second language. If
we concur with Ellis (2006) that there is now much evidence to support the teaching of grammar, the
levels KAG indicated here are cause for concern. Moreover, the New Zealand curriculum and supporting
documents require teachers to have a sound understanding of grammar. The writers of these documents
assume that teachers are competent and confident to implement them. These assumptions may be naive.
Although some teachers are not confident in their KAG, those interviewed all believe in the importance of
teaching grammar explicitly to their students. They are making conscientious efforts to teach grammar,
adopting approaches that they believe are appropriate. Whilst this may be admirable, it could also be
cause for concern. Teachers may do more harm than good teaching something they know little about.
Where teachers have gaps in their knowledge it may be better not to engage in form focused instruction
(Elder, Erlam, & Philp, 2007).
The teachers interviewed are aware of the importance of teaching grammar in meaningful ways, within
authentic contexts where possible. It was encouraging to hear about some sound and effective methods of
teaching grammar being implemented. There were also some approaches described which appeared to
59
lack any sound rationale or basis, and on the surface at least did not appear very effective. Unfortunately,
it is beyond the scope of this research project to observe actual classroom practice, to determine whether
in fact teachers do what they say they do. One recommendation for further research would be to include
this aspect.
There is some evidence that teachers would like more guidance both from a national and school level,
about what to teach, and how. The Ministry of Education and schools need to consider professional
development opportunities for teachers in the area of grammar. It is hoped that findings from the
completed project may provide the necessary impetus for the support teachers are seeking. Those tested
and interviewed for this study, although small in number, provide some insights into teachers’
understandings about grammar.
Some are clearly crying out for support.
I know enough personally – I can write essays and stuff for university…creative writing, I can do all that… but me as a teacher being able to explain and teach it – not so much. I know how to do it without doing it, without thinking. But when it comes to thinking about it I wouldn’t have a clue. It’s like driving a car, you just do it automatically. (Leila)
Teacher educators, both pre and post service need to consider whether their programmes adequately
prepare teachers like Leila to effectively implement the curriculum.
60
References
Andrews, S. (1999). Why do L2 teachers need to ‘know about language’? Metalinguistic awareness and
input for learning. Language and Education, 13(3), pp.161 – 177.
Andrews, S. (2001). The language awareness of the L2 teacher: Its impact upon pedagogical practice.
Language Awarenes,s, 10 (2 and 3), pp. 75 – 90.
Andrews, S. (2003). Teacher language awareness and the professional knowledge base of the L2 teacher.
Language Awareness, 12 (2), pp.81 – 95.
Bigelow, M. & Ranney, S. (2005). Pre-service teachers’ knowledge about language and its transfer to
lesson planning. In Applied linguistics and language teacher education. Bartels, N. (Ed). New
York: Springer.
Borg, S. (1999). Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching. English language teaching journal, 53(3), pp.
157 – 167.
Borg, S. (2001). Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar. English language teaching journal,
55(1), pp. 21 – 29.
Borg, S. (2003a). Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers
think, know, believe, and do. Language teaching, 36, pp. 81 – 109.
Borg, S. (2003b). Teacher cognition in grammar teaching: A literature review. Language Awareness, 12
(2), pp. 96-108.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: research and practice. London: Continuum.
Breen, M., Hird, B. Milton, M. Oliver, R. & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language teaching:
teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 22 (4), pp. 470-5-1.
Burgess, J. & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit? System, 30, pp.
433 – 458.
Collerson, J. (1994). English grammar: a functional approach. Newtown, NSW: Primary English
Teaching Association.
Derewianka, B. (1998). A grammar companion for primary teachers. Sydney: Primary English Teaching
Association.
Elder, C., Erlam, R. & Philp, J. (2007). Explicit language knowledge and focus on form: options and
obstacles for TESOL teacher trainees. In Form-focused instruction and teacher education:
studies in honour of Rod Ellis. Fotos, S. & Nassaji, H (Eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40
(1), p. 83 – 107.
Ministry of Education, (2007a). Literacy learning progressions: draft for consultation. Wellington:
Learning Media.
Ministry of Education, (2007b). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education, (2008). The English language learning progressions: a resource for mainstream
and ESOL teachers. Wellington: Learning Media.
Morris, L. (2003). Linguistic knowledge, metalinguistic knowledge and academic success in a language
teacher education programme. Language Awareness, 12(2), pp.109 – 122).
Scott, K. (1994). Foreword. In J. Collerson. English grammar: a functional approach. Newtown, NSW:
Primary English Teaching Association.
61
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the support of The University of Auckland for providing funding for this
project. Also, my colleagues Dr Susan Gray and Margaret Kitchen have been extremely supportive with
their research ideas and knowledge about grammar. Finally, Dr Jenefer Philp and Dr Rosemary Erlam
provided initial guidance with research design. They have also encouraged me with their ongoing interest
and enthusiasm for the research.
Biographical Details
Maree Jeurissen is a lecturer on the Graduate Diploma in TESSOL (Teaching English in Schools to
Speakers of Other Languages) at the Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
She is a primary school teacher who has taught in ESOL and mainstream contexts.
62
Appendix A Semi-structured interview (pre-course)
Knowledge of English grammar How would you describe your knowledge of English grammar? What do you think has contributed to this level of knowledge? Do you think your understanding of English grammar is sufficient for you as a teacher? Why/ why not? If you think you need to know more about grammar, what would help you to increase your knowledge/understanding? What makes it difficult for you to learn about grammar? Beliefs about teaching grammar What are your beliefs about the teaching of grammar in general? What are your beliefs about how grammar should be taught for your year ___ students? What do you think has influenced your beliefs? Teaching grammar in the classroom Tell me about the most recent time you dealt with an aspect of grammar in your classroom (either with an individual, group, or the whole class). Do you teach grammar in any of the following ways? (if so give an example)
A teacher fronted formal lesson dealing with a specific aspect of grammar e.g. conjunctions, adjectives;
Correcting grammatical errors in students’ written work; Explicit correction of student talk which includes a metalinguistic explanation e.g.
S: Yesterday I goed to the beach. T: You should say ‘Yesterday I went to the beach’ because ‘went’ is the irregular past tense form of the verb ‘go’
Explicit correction of student talk which does not include a metalinguistic explanation e.g. S: Mary and Sione likes going to movies. T: No, we say ‘Mary and Sione like going to the movies.’
Implicit correction of student talk by recasting e.g. S: David is riding horse. T: David is riding the horse.
Planning a task with a specific grammatical focus, in which the students will need to use the target structure. The target structure is not made explicit to the students e.g. An oral sequencing task in which the students will need to use temporal conjunctions such as first, next, finally.
Planning a task with a specific grammatical focus, in which the students will need to use the target structure. The target structure is made explicit to the students (perhaps in the learning intentions) prior to the task e.g. students need to use the causal connective ‘therefore’.
Which of these ways of teaching grammar would you say you used most often? Why? Which of these ways of teaching grammar would you say you used least often? Why? Are you happy with the way you deal with grammar in your classroom? Why/ why not? What makes it difficult for you to deal with grammar in your classroom? What makes it (or would make it) easy for you to deal with grammar in your classroom?
63
Appendix B Semi Structured Individual Interview Schedule 2 (at the completion of the course)
Knowledge of English grammar How would you describe your knowledge of English grammar now? Do you think your knowledge of grammar has increased since our first interview? What makes you say that? Do you think your understanding of English grammar is sufficient for you as a teacher? Why/ why not? What has helped you to increase your grammar knowledge while you have been doing the course? What has made it difficult to you to learn grammar while you have been doing the course? What could we (the lecturers) do to help you more? Beliefs about teaching grammar Do you think your beliefs about teaching grammar have changed during this course? Explain. In our first interview you said that… (talk about any points not discussed in the first question). Do you still think this is true? Why / why not? What do you now believe about how grammar should be taught for your year ___ students? Why? Teaching grammar in the classroom Do you think the students in your class have a sufficient grasp of grammar? Explain. Tell me about the most recent time you dealt with an aspect of grammar in your classroom (either with an individual, group, or the whole class). Do you teach grammar in any of the following ways? (if so give an example)
A teacher fronted formal lesson dealing with a specific aspect of grammar e.g. conjunctions, adjectives;
Correcting grammatical errors in students’ written work; Explicit correction of student talk which includes a metalinguistic explanation e.g.
S: Yesterday I goed to the beach. T: You should say ‘Yesterday I went to the beach’ because ‘went’ is the irregular past tense form of the verb ‘go’
Explicit correction of student talk which does not include a metalinguistic explanation e.g. S: Mary and Sione likes going to movies. T: No, we say ‘Mary and Sione like going to the movies.’
Implicit correction of student talk by recasting e.g. S: David is riding horse. T: David is riding the horse.
Planning a task with a specific grammatical focus, in which the students will need to use the target structure. The target structure is not made explicit to the students e.g. An oral sequencing task in which the students will need to use temporal conjunctions such as first, next, finally.
Planning a task with a specific grammatical focus, in which the students will need to use the target structure. The target structure is made explicit to the students (perhaps in the learning intentions) prior to the task e.g. students need to use the causal connective ‘therefore’.
Which of these ways of teaching grammar would you say you used most often? Why? Which of these ways of teaching grammar would you say you used least often? Why? Are you happy with the way you deal with grammar in your classroom? Why/ why not? What makes it difficult for you to deal with grammar in your classroom? What makes it (or would make it) easy for you to deal with grammar in your classroom? Have you changed the ways you deal with grammar in the classroom as a result of doing this course? Why / why not?
64
Appendix C Grammar Knowledge Pre-test
Read the following joke Two elephants went on holiday and sat down on the beach. It was a very hot day and they fancied having a swim in the sea. Unfortunately they couldn’t: they only had one pair of trunks. Identify the following grammar items from the joke and give a definition if you can. The first one is done for you as an example. Grammar feature Example from text Definition
A pronoun which relates back to the two elephants.
they
A pronoun takes the place of a noun. They is the personal pronoun referring to the two elephants.
1. An irregular verb in the simple past tense.
2. A regular verb in the simple past tense.
3. A common noun.
4. A verb phrase.
5. A prepositional phrase.
6. A countable noun.
65
7. A quantity adjective.
8. An adverbial.
9. A singular noun
10. A plural noun
11. A compound sentence
12. A finite clause
13. A definite article
14. An indefinite article
15. A coordinating conjunction
66
Leadership, literacy and learning with technologies
Associate Professor Kathryn Moyle Faculty of Education, University of Canberra
Ms Jan Rogers
Principal, Numeralla Public School
67
Abstract
In 2006, three Australian teaching-principals in small, country schools in New South Wales established
themselves as a cluster to assist them improve the quality of their teaching and learning, and in particular
the literacy levels of the students within their respective schools. Funding from the Australian Quality
Teacher Education Programme, New South Wales, enabled the establishment of the cluster with the
involvement of an academic partner from the University of Canberra. An action learning approach
informed their work. Several strategies including the use of information and communication technologies
were incorporated into the students’ learning to assist their literacy development. Data were collected to
guide the directions of this project. Both students and their respective school principals used evidence
throughout the project to inform its’ future directions. This paper outlines and reflects upon the strategies
undertaken by members of this cluster as they implemented their literacy action learning plan, which
included the use of partnerships between the three school principals and the ‘academic partner’. The
concepts of ‘leadership’, ‘literacy’ and ‘learning with technologies’ came together in the work of these
schools in country New South Wales to assist students to improve their literacy levels and to develop high
quality learning outcomes.
Introduction
Investigating the inter-connections and inter-dependencies in the field of education has been interesting
policy-makers and practitioners alike in recent times. Over the past decade the two bodies of research:
‘literacy teaching and learning’, and ‘teacher effectiveness’ have combined (Louden, Rohl, Pugh, Brown,
Cairney, Elderfield, House, Meiers, Rivalland & Rowe 2005). More recently trends in education
developments include bringing together the theory and practice of ‘leadership’, ‘literacy’ and ‘learning
with technologies’ in schools (Moyle 2006). To explore these respective concepts, this paper draws on
both the literature and the experiences of the teaching-principals in three small schools in country New
South Wales (NSW) who used action learning processes to improve the quality of their literacy teaching
and learning.
The concept of ‘action learning’ advanced by Revans constructs action learning as ‘a means by which
people learn with and from each other by attempting to identify and then implement solutions to their
problems/issues’ (1982, p.65). In the NSW context, action learning involves educators working with and
learning from each other in collaboration with an academic partner from a University. The purposes of
the schools-university action learning teams include to explore possible ideas and solutions to specifically
identified issues within schools, and to inform future decision-making in those schools. An important
characteristic of action learning in this context is that it involves processes of cyclic planning, doing, and
reflecting, which leads to the next cycle and so on (cf Bettison & Bradburn 2006). This action learning
approach underpinned the work of the teaching-principals in the three small schools whose work is
outlined in this paper. They used action learning strategies to improve students’ literacy levels and to
foster high quality learning outcomes with the use of information and communication technologies (ICT).
68
The teaching-principals involved in this initiative were located in the schools of Jerangle, Numeralla and
Bredbo in country NSW. They established the ‘Brenumerangle Cluster’ to collaborate across the three
schools. Jerangle Primary School is a P-6 school which had seven students in years from Kindergarten to
Year Six in 2006. It is located twenty-nine kilometres from the nearest town with facilities. Numeralla
Primary School is also a P-6 school, and in 2006 it had thirteen students in Kindergarten to Year Six. It is
located twenty kilometres from the nearest town. And Bredbo Primary School is a P-5 school which had
twenty-seven students in 2006. The three schools are well resourced and have established libraries and
reading programs. In 2006, the schools also received a rollout of computers, and so each school had
sufficient computers for all its students. Given the small size of each of these schools however, one of the
challenges for the teaching-principals is how to teach multi-levels of students in the one class.
The teaching-principals identified several goals for their action learning initiative: both for the students
and themselves. While the two overarching goals for those involved in this project were to work on
improving students’ literacy levels and fostering high quality learning outcomes, the teaching-principals
also identified other goals that specifically related to their own professional growth. Geographic and
professional isolation are issues in these small rural schools for teaching-principals. At the beginning of
the project, the principals expressed their views about isolation this way:
We want to eliminate the professional isolation of our small schools through the pursuit of a common goal that will necessitate regular communication, sharing of successes and challenges and improve the ICT skills and literacy levels in our schools (‘Brenumerangle Cluster’ 2006a, p.6).
To assist them with their initiative the three teaching-principals sought and received funding for 18
months through the Australian Government’s Quality Teacher Programme (AGQTP), Quality teaching
action learning initiative in NSW. The AGQTP Quality teaching action learning initiative was designed
to support individual and small clusters of schools to apply action learning models to their professional
learning activities. In their submission seeking funding, the teaching-principals indicated that to improve
the quality of their teaching and learning, they wanted to develop authentic and inclusive quality learning
environments, and to develop a close collegial network.
This paper, written from an ‘insiders’ point of view, outlines and reflects upon some of the strategies used
to implement a literacy action learning plan within the ‘Brenumerangle Cluster’; and on the partnerships
developed between the three school principals and the ‘academic partner’, to achieve their goals.
Background
The respective fields of literacy, learning with technologies and leadership are in various stages of
development but the relationships between these fields are under-developed and emerging from practice.
Some of the characteristics in each field are discussed here with a view to investigating the inter-
relationships between these fields, based upon findings from previous research and on the practices drawn
from the three schools in this project.
69
The literature on literacy teaching and learning is well developed (Louden et al 2005). In Australia, there
is a range of government commissioned studies concerning the quality and extent of students’ literacy, as
well as work by individual researchers (cf Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth
Affairs (DEETYA) 1998; Luke, Freebody & Land 2000; Meiers & Stephanou 2000; Rowe 2002). Areas
of interest covered in these papers and reports indicate that the debates about teaching and learning of
students’ literacy is highly political, and that the issues for research range from the types of strategies that
ought to underpin literacy learning through to educational testing, accountability and teacher
effectiveness.
Several authors in Australia and overseas (cf Louden et al 2005; Snow, Burns & Griffin 1998) discuss the
complex nature of literacy development and in particular the teaching of reading processes. They suggest
that developing students’ literacy skills requires students to use reading to obtain meaning, which requires
teachers to provide frequent opportunities for students to read and write; to support students to understand
the structure of spoken words and the alphabetic principle of the English writing system; and for students
to be exposed to frequent, regular spelling-sound relationships (Louden et al 2005). The links between
literacy learning and learning with ICT however, are less well researched. In their study reported in 2001
though, Snow, Burns & Griffin identified that computers appeared ‘promising’ in terms of teaching
children to read, and in preventing reading difficulties. Furthermore they indicated that the addition of
speech to on-screen text, hypertext and word processing functions for writing would assist students’
literacy learning.
In Australia, a 1997 report called Digital Rhetorics (Lankshear, Bigum, Green, Morgan, Murray, Synder,
& Wild), outlined the results of a two year study investigating the relationships between literacy,
technology and learning. In that report and subsequently, the authors argue that in the 'electronic age',
educators’ pedagogical approaches ought to develop students’ literacy skills using multiple strategies
including the following ICT-based approaches:
• text-based computing software through (for example), word processing and desktop publishing;
• information-based computing software through (for example), using databases and spreadsheets;
• programming-based computing through (for example), learning some simple approaches to
programming; and
• games-based computing software such as the online and digital games like SimCity.
At that time they argued that at the end of the 20th century, students’ literacies skills should include three
integral dimensions: operational, cultural and critical. Drawing upon Green’s ‘3D’ approach to literacy
(Green 1988), they made the following distinctions between these different sorts of literacies:
The operational dimension involves being able to read and write within a range of contexts in an adequate and appropriate manner employing conventional print and electronic media. Teaching mechanical skills of reading, writing, spelling, keyboarding, etc., should be relatively direct, insistent and demanding, but grounded as far as possible in everyday purposes and pursuits familiar to learners.
70
The cultural dimension involves understanding texts and information in relation to the contexts - real life practices - in which they are produced, received and used. Without the cultural dimension, language users are unable to understand what makes particular ways of reading and writing appropriate or inappropriate, adequate or inadequate, within a given situation or setting. The critical dimension involves being able to innovate, transform, improve, and add value to social practices and the literacies associated with them. It makes the difference between merely being socialised into sets of skills, values, beliefs and procedures, and being able to make judgments about them from a perspective which identifies them for what they are (and are not) and recognises alternative possibilities (Lankshear 1999, p.142).
Lankshear (1999) further argued that the operational, cultural and critical dimensions of literacy must be
learnt in contextualised ways and not simply through 'tests' of students’ encoding and decoding skills,
decontextualised from students’ lives.
Combining the research fields of ‘literacy teaching and learning’, and ‘teacher effectiveness’ has occurred
over the past decade. Louden et al (2005) have shown that teachers’ literacy pedagogical practices vary
according to teacher effectiveness. They assert that effective teachers demonstrate a wider variety of
literacy strategies than do less effective teachers. The relationships between ‘literacy teaching and
learning’, ‘teacher effectiveness’, ‘learning with ICT’ and ‘school leadership' however, have received
very little investigation to date, and similarly, the practicalities of providing school leadership that fosters
the integration of ICT into teaching and learning has also received only limited investigation in Australia.
A report about the relationships between school leadership and teaching and learning with technologies
(Moyle 2006), and two (then) Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST)-funded reports
however do provide some insights.
The DEST reports Making Better Connections (Downes, Fluck, Gibbons, Leonard, Matthews, Oliver,
Vickers & Williams 2001), and Raising the Standards (DEST 2002) both investigated the issue of school
leadership as part of broader projects and made recommendations concerning the importance of school
leadership in relation to the integration of ICT into teaching and learning. Making Better Connections
mainly focused upon professional learning issues and ICT leadership, and Raising the Standards
addressed leadership standards for the integration of ICT into schools. The Leadership and Learning with
ICT (Moyle 2006) report indicates however, that according to the participants in the study, all of whom
were educational leaders in varying contexts across Australia, that students require literacy skills and
understandings so they can check the veracity of information they locate in online environments.
Furthermore, the participants also identified critical literacy skills as essential for students so that they can
make meaning from what they are accessing from the Internet. In addition, the participants in the
Leadership and Learning with ICT study indicated students have to learn how to question written
information rather than to simply accept it as the ‘truth’. Each of these three reports, consistent with
research about school leadership (cf Day & Leithwood 2007; Fullan 2008, 2001), further indicated the
central importance of school leaders, and in particular school principals, to bringing about specific
changes within their schools.
71
Overseas studies investigating the relationships between school leadership, literacy and incorporating
technologies into teaching and learning in schools also reiterate the lack of a ‘critical mass’ of studies
upon which to draw. In her study for example, the Canadian Dianne Yee (2000) observed that the daily
work of principals in schools that are ‘ICT-enriched’ has not been well examined in educational
leadership research. She states that ‘a review of literature pertaining to educational leadership provides
limited research about the relationship between educational leadership and ICT in education’ (Yee 2000,
p297). While in the United Kingdom (UK), a review of literature by the British Education
Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) and the National Council for School Leadership
(NCSL) indicates that the qualities identified as being important for school leaders who are taking
account of ICT in their work are ‘pragmatism; clear educational principles to inform ICT developments;
and an ethos that encourages innovation and risk-taking’ (BECTA & NCSL 2003).
To date however, there is a lack of research and literature that investigates the inter-connected nature of
the issues with which the three small schools in country NSW set out to address: literacy development,
high quality learning environments, leadership, teacher effectiveness and learning with technologies. As
such, this paper now draws upon their experiences using a literacy action learning plan which included
the use of partnerships between the three school principals and the academic partner, to highlight some of
the strategies employed to assist students to improve their literacy levels and to develop high quality
learning outcomes.
Approach
The starting point for the three teaching-principals in the ‘Brenumerangle Cluster’ was the aim to
improve their students’ literacy skills, and in particular the reading and spelling skills of their students,
including with the assistance of ICT. All three schools identified literacy and ICT priorities and targets in
their respective school plans for 2006-2008. As such, the schools’ respective strategic planning contexts
for the development of literacy action learning plans linked directly with each school’s teaching and
learning and professional learning aspirations. Furthermore, while the teaching-principals were keen to
improve their approaches to literacy development within their respective schools, they were also keen for
the students to develop deeper understanding about learning with technologies.
The teaching-principals specifically wanted to work together to improve the literacy of their students
using the Connected Outcomes Groups (COGs) and the Scope and Sequence parts of the NSW
curriculum statements. They agreed to try out teaching the students with a shared problem that was
consistent across the three schools and to then reflect upon their practice with their colleagues. They
collectively planned different activities for the students each term. In each of the classrooms they then
implemented strategies to achieve their agreed goals in the ways appropriate for the particular students
and school, and collected data to share across the Cluster.
72
The funding received through AGQTP NSW enabled the establishment of the ‘Brenumerangle Cluster’
with time release for the teaching-principals and for the involvement of an academic partner from the
University of Canberra. The creation of the name of the ‘Brenumerangle Cluster’, which is an amalgam
of the three schools’ names, occurred organically among the group and was important for enabling the
group to rapidly gain an identity. Members of the group identified with being a member of the
‘Brenumerangle Cluster’: they envisaged themselves both as a teaching-principal of one of the schools in
the group, as well as a member of the ‘Brenumerangle Cluster’.
Action learning processes underpinned the work of the three teaching-principals in collaboration with
their academic partner, and informed the nature of their professional learning activities. They used cycles
of inquiry to plan, implement, observe, describe, discuss, reflect upon and evaluate the processes and
outcomes being undertaken by them collectively to improve the quality of the teaching and learning being
undertaken in their schools. To reflect upon their practices, members of the ‘Brenumerangle Cluster’
formally met face to face once or twice a term. The purposes of these meetings included to share
information and observations of how they felt their teaching and learning was progressing; to review and
update the plans they had made; to document achievements; to discuss and share teaching and learning
strategies; and to reflect on how the directions of the project were progressing and whether any
redirections or refinements were required. Data was used to assist with decisions about questions such as
‘where to next?’
Together the principals and the academic partner took responsibilities for a role within the Cluster. One of
the teaching-principals took the role of coordinating the arrangements across the Cluster; while another
teaching-principal took responsibility for liaison with the NSW Department of Education concerning
information technology (IT) issues as required; and the other teaching-principal provided support to the
group about how to use specific IT applications to assist their teaching and learning. The academic
partner’s role was to provide critical mentoring support to the team, and to assist the principals use
school-based data to inform their work. At the beginning of the project, the teaching-principals articulated
their expectations of the academic partner as follows:
Our academic partner will assist us develop a deeper understanding of the quality teaching
framework. She will also help us to develop effective action learning strategies e.g.
gathering data, evaluating evidence, providing feedback and developing processes to
sustain quality improvement. She will also assist with refining of our action learning plan
and she will play a significant role in the evaluation of the project e.g. preparing and
writing of the progress and final reports. Our academic partner will also be our critical
friend/professional colleague supporting the team through observation and sharing feedback
on our classroom practices (‘Brenumerangle Cluster’ 2006a, p.3).
All members of the group brought to the table their expertise in curriculum, teaching and learning and
assessment and reporting.
73
Using data
One of the professional goals of the teaching-principals was to use existing data and to gather additional
data, to inform their work both as leaders and teachers. At the beginning of the project the team planned
what they would do in their respective classrooms and what data they would require. Several sources of
evidence were identified to guide the directions of this action learning project including student feedback;
students’ performance in reading and writing on the state’s Basic Skills Test and on other tests
administered by the teaching-principals themselves; as well as their own observations and reflections, and
those of the academic partner. At the outset of the project the teaching-principals had data on students’
reading levels and they decided upon their test of students’ ICT capabilities. In their first progress report
to the NSW Department of Education they indicated that We have agreed upon a common assessment of reading levels for all students to be recorded and shared as a beginning benchmark for the project. We are in the process of assessing the ICT skills of all students in the three schools (‘Brenumerangle Cluster’ 2006b, p.2).
The teaching-principals and the academic partner reviewed the data available within the schools and
together agreed on the types of additional testing they wanted to do to establish a ‘base line benchmark’
for the initiative. It was found that the reading comprehension levels across the students within the three
schools and across the three schools varied. The challenge for the teaching-principals then was how to
teach students across the range of school year levels in one class, that included students whose reading
comprehension skills within specific years levels ranged from above to below the state average.
The teaching-principals also agreed to administer the same spelling test to the students in each of the
schools, to ascertain the spelling levels of students across the Cluster. This testing also showed that in the
three schools the spelling ability of the students was largely at or above the state average but with a few
students below that and requiring special assistance. The three teaching-principals also took stock of their
students’ capabilities with using computers and the Internet. After reviewing a range of tests of students’
ICT skills, they agreed among themselves what skills and abilities they wished to assess and in doing so
found that the students could word process, import text, insert photos, save documents to a file, search the
Internet and use email.
It was on the basis of these findings that the ‘Brenumerangle Cluster’ confirmed their plans to use
technologies to assist students to develop their reading comprehension and writing literacy skills, and
concurrently continue to develop their students’ ICT literacy skills. The teaching-principals could see the
potential of the students using technologies to develop their reading comprehension and spelling skills.
74
Using technologies
During the course of this initiative several ways of fostering students’ literacy were undertaken.
Technologies such as the computer and the Internet, and in one school, digital cameras and film-making
were explicitly included into the classroom activities of the students, with the use of these technologies
specifically aimed at supporting the students to develop their reading and spelling skills using authentic
and meaningful tasks. To foster writing, one of the classroom student activities involved the students
emailing to their peers in the other schools, electronic resources such as URL sites and/or learning objects
that were appropriate to the learning outcomes they were all undertaking. Another common activity
involved students using the intranet to compare their views of online learning objects. The emphases in
the student activities were on the students reading for comprehension and spelling accurately in their
writing: whether the students were preparing the storyboards for a film or writing an email to a student in
another school.
The teaching-principals determined the common rubic learning outcomes they wanted to be achieved and
in what ways certain technologies would be used to assist the students to be able to meet those learning
outcomes. In this way, the technologies were one means to an end (ie developing students’ literacy levels)
rather than the end in themselves. Indeed, the purposes for the use of technologies included to encourage
the students to read and write using technologies in ways that connected with their daily lives. An
additional motivation was to build the size of the student community so that the students could develop
relationships with other students beyond the individual school walls.
Establishing teaching and learning activities to develop students’ literacy levels with the use of
technologies meant though, that the teaching-principals themselves also developed their ICT skills. Each
of the teaching-principals commenced this initiative with varying levels of sophistication with the use of
technologies. The collegiate nature of the group however, allowed for mentoring and sharing of expertise
both in terms of pedagogical practices with ICT, and for the ‘back-end’ work required to make sure the IT
systems would run and were robust. Through teamwork, the teaching-principals were each able to
successfully include technologies in their suite of strategies for building their students’ literacy levels.
The use of technologies within each of the schools was undertaken within the context of the NSW
Department of Education’s policy framework and its’ ICT network. Before implementing their teaching
and learning approaches they ensured that the functionality they required was available and working. One
of the teaching-principals liaised with the regional IT support officers on behalf of the group to ensure
they and their students could securely browse the Internet. For example, in May 2006 the ‘Brenumerangle
Cluster’ reported that
We are all in the process of the introduction of Secure Internet Browsing from the NSW Department of Education (‘Brenumerangle Cluster’ 2006a: 3).
75
After the initiative had been operating for about 18 months the schools each decided they wanted to
showcase the activities that had been undertaken by the students to develop their literacy skills. Each of
the schools held a parents afternoon where the students demonstrated their activities and achievements.
One of the teaching-principals arranged for this activity to occur in the local town hall and the students
showcased their work electronically. The teaching-principal in another of the schools worked with the
students to produce a DVD of their work.
Conclusion
The two overarching questions that drove the development of the literacy action learning plan developed
within the ‘Brenumerangle Cluster’ were:
1. how can we improve the literacy levels of the students in our schools?; and
2. how can we foster high quality learning outcomes in our students?
To inform their work addressing these two questions, several other considerations then flowed for the
three teaching-principals involved in this initiative. These considerations included issues such as how to
develop students’ literacy levels using meaningful and authentic tasks with their students. These
educators also wanted to decrease the isolation that affected them as lone teaching-principals and also for
the students in their schools. To address these issues, they took the approach of positioning themselves as
learners, using the action learning model of planning, acting, observing, describing and reflecting, and
revising plans, for further action to take place.
Drawing on Lankshear et al (1999), these teacher-principals approached literacy development through
technologies by fostering students’ operational and cultural dimensions to their reading and writing
capabilities through encouraging activities grounded in the students’ everyday lives, and developing
students’ understandings of what is appropriate and inappropriate writing that forms parts of emails and
other web-based communications. Students were also supported to build upon their reading and writing
capabilities in online environments, to reflect critically on what they were learning and to make decisions
about alternative possibilities for conveying messages to others. Furthermore, the teacher-principals
recognised that in order to teach their students to use technologies, and to teach through and about
technologies in the most competent and creative ways, that they had to be skilled, informed and critical
users themselves.
To inform their plans and directions and to assist their reflections and recognition of achievements, the
members of the ‘Brenumerangle Cluster’ collected and used a range of data to inform their decision-
making. Professional conversations were conducted around the nature of the data collected, about what it
showed, and what actions ought to be taken in light of the evidence before the group. Because the
members of the group identified with the group called ‘Brenumerangle Cluster’, then the interpretations
of the data collected, the problems that arose and the solutions proposed were all shared. Using data to
determine the literacy levels specifically in reading and spelling through this initiative provided the group
76
with base-line data upon which insights into the distance travelled over the course of the project could be
determined.
While the quantitative data on the reading comprehension and spelling tests reflected students’ improving
in their respective literacy levels in spelling and reading comprehension, there were also less quantifiable
and unexpected outcomes that flowed from this action learning initiative. The teaching-principals found
that the students concentrated and were engaged with reading and the writing tasks focused on spelling
that were undertaken using technologies, and that through the use of email between the students in each
of the schools, the walls of the schools did seem to get bigger. And indeed in practical terms they have.
Since the introduction of this initiative, the enrolments in each of the schools has grown, with Numeralla
growing from twelve students in 2006 to twenty-two in 2008.
The strengths of the approach taken by the ‘Brenumerangle Cluster’ include that they
• Used base-line data to inform plans and activities for both the students and the professional learning
requirements of the teaching-principals;
• Identified common tasks for use in each of the schools’ classrooms across the Cluster;
• Made sure the technology worked before using it with their students;
• Established and worked to agreed communal timelines; and
• Demonstrated outcomes to both the students and their parents.
Since the conclusion of the funding for this action learning initiative, those involved in the
‘Brenumerangle Cluster’ have continued to network and share ideas about literacy and improving
pedagogy. It is through the development of collegial networks such as these, that these school leaders and
teachers were able to share and apply their understandings about teaching and learning, literacy and
learning with technologies in ever thoughtful, challenging and insightful ways. The success of this project
reiterates the important role school leaders play in bringing about change, supporting the development
students’ literacy capabilities and in promoting teaching and learning with technologies. Through the use
of action learning and the collection and interpretation of school based data these teacher-principals
informed their own practice and provided leadership to their students and to their school communities.
77
References Bettison, K. & Bradburn, K. (2006). Quality teaching action learning handbook, Australian Government
Quality Teacher Programme and New South Wales Department of Education and Training,
http://www.qtp.nsw.edu.au/ResourceDocuments/QTAL_Handbook_06.pdf [Retrieved June 11 2006]
Brenumerangle cluster (2006a). Quality Teaching Action Learning 2006–07, Application for Funding,
New South Wales Department of Education and Training
Brenumerangle cluster (2006b). Quality teaching action learning: First progress report, New South
Wales Department of Education and Training
British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) & National Council for School
Leadership (NCSL) (2003). Strategic leadership in ICT,
http://www.ncsl.org.uk/leadership_development/ strategic_programmes/ldev-strategic-slict-index.cfm
[accessed 2005, March 12]
Day, C. & Leithwood, K. (eds) (2007). Successful principal leadership in times of change. An
international perspective, Springer: The Netherlands
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA) (1998). Literacy for all:
The challenge for Australian schools. Canberra: Australia, DEETYA
Department of Education, Science & Training (DEST) (2002). Raising the standards. A proposal for the
development of an ICT competency framework for teachers, University of Western Sydney (UWS),
Australian Curriculum Studies Association (ACSA), Australian Council for Computers in Education
(ACCE), Technology Education Federation of Australia (TEFA) on behalf of DEST, Canberra:
Australia
Downes, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, C., Oliver, R., Vickers, M., Williams, M.
(2001). Making better connections. Models of teacher professional development for the integration of
information and communication technology into classroom practice, Canberra, Australia, Australian
Curriculum Studies Association; Australian Council for Computers in Education; Technology
Education Federation Australia; University of Western Sydney
Fullan, M. (2008). ‘Commentary: School Leadership’s Unfinished Agenda Integrating Individual and
Organizational Development’, Education Week Vol.27, No. 31, pp36-42
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco
Green, B. (1988). Subject-specific literacy and school learning: a focus on writing, Australian Journal of
Education, 32(2), pp156-179
Lankshear, C. (1999). Digital Rhetorics: Literacies and technologies in classrooms – current practices and
future directions, Queensland Journal of Education Research, 15(1), pp141-148
Lankshear, C., Bigum, C., Green, B., Morgan, W., Murray, J., Synder, I. & Wild, M. (1997). Digital
rhetorics: Literacies and technologies in education - current practices and future directions,
Australia: Queensland University of Technology and the Commonwealth Department of Employment,
Education, Training and Youth Affairs
Louden, W.; Rohl, M.; Pugh, C.B.; Brown, C.; Cairney, T.; Elderfield, J.; House, H.; Meiers, M.;
Rivalland, J. & Rowe, K. (2005). In Teachers’ Hands: Effective Literacy Teaching Practices in the
Early Years of Schooling, Edith Cowan University
78
Luke, A., Freebody, P., & Land, R. (2000). Literate futures: The Queensland state literacy strategy.
Report of the literacy review for Queensland schools. Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Meiers, M., & Stephanou, A. (2000). Constructing scales for reporting growth in numeracy: The ACER
longitudinal literacy and numeracy study. Paper presented at the ACER Research Conference,
Brisbane, October
Moyle, K. (2006). Leadership and learning with ICT: Voices from the profession, Teaching Australia,
Canberra: Australia
Revans, R.(1982) ‘What is action learning’, Journal of Management Development, 1(3), pp64-75.
Rowe, K. J. (2002). Progress report for LLANS literacy and numeracy: Surveys 1-5. Camberwell,
Victoria: Australia, Australian Council for Educational Research.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (eds.). (2001). Instructional strategies for kindergarten and the
primary grades. Washington, DC: USA, The National Academy of Sciences
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Yee, D. L. (2000). Images of School Principals’ Information and Communications Technology
Leadership. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9 (3), pp287-302.
79
